City ownership isn’t “monopoly” – that’s just the distraction of the duopolists. City ownership would be a civic service aimed at the public interest, not at the narrow interest that tries to squeeze the most money out of the copper infrastructure or cripple the Internet and stifle creativity because they can’t adapt.

The first rule of any network from a business perspective – buy or build your own when you can – don’t rent. That’s the mistake cities have been making for years. If it’s good enough for the private sector to own their own networks – let the people benefit from the same economic logic.

This was a reaction to some of the ideas expressed on the Seattle Post Globe.

I’ve got a new adage, 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.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, 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 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?

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

Is there anything new here? The ring of “public-private” partnership or cooperation is flat…

Chicago should have started wiring (and unwiring) itself 10 years ago. What happened to the promise of CivicNet? Promises, promises, and more platitudes?

This is not to impugn Mr. Bhatt – it’s just that we’ve been singing this song for a long time and we still don’t have the communications infrastructure we need in Chicago (or nationally). I’ve written extensively on how this language obscures the process of addressing civic needs, I won’t belabor the point here.

As far as not expecting a bailout for infrastructure – true – we ought not be holding our breath – but the need for general infrastructure investment is pressing, and lack of action disadvantages our economic well being and quality of life as we compete in global markets. This applies not just to communications infrastructure but to transport and especially public transport. If we want to jump start the economy, this is where we need to make investments – where we’ll create jobs doing the work we need. The “markets” will take care of themselves. Isn’t that what we’d been told all along? I don’t believe the markets take care of everything nor that they take care of things according to our national (or local) values.

What would you do with $700 Billion?

We need bold civic leadership. Bailing out the financiers won’t help any of us in the short run nor over the long haul.

Green investments in energy, transit, and communications infrastructure coupled with decisions that are grounded in meeting the needs of the community with mechanisms for community planning, oversight and accountability are the best way out of our current mess. Indeed, they are the best way forward in any weather.

The Free Geek concept is widespread – Portland Oregon the flagship – and well regarded in the Open Source world.

Free Geek Chicago is perhaps unique among Chicago computer recyclers/refurbishers in their endeavor to maximize the life of discarded computer components. Watch the video, let them speak for themselves. Then think about what you can do to further the causes that align under the Free Geek Chicago mission.

Free Geek Chicago needs your support. They need reliable streams of discarded computer equipment. They need us to get the word out. Bring in your old equipment, yes … but perhaps there is more that can be done – for example, you can inquire as to where and how your company’s equipment is handled. If it is picked up for recycling or refurbishing … look into how hard they work to keep the materials out of the waste stream. You may be surprised. Not all recyclers or refurbishers are equal. There are hidden costs to everything … the best way to keep equipment out of landfills foreign or domestic is to increase their useful lives. Such utility has three aspectswe should keep in mind – the functioning of the equipment, the functional (digital) literacy of the person seeking to make use of that equipment (and the harmony of their purposes) and not least – the community or network of support that bridges the physicality of the hardware and the human. This is Free Geek’s talent and m.o.

There’s so much more that I’d love to say. For the moment I just want to spread the positive media meme with the Free Geek Chicago story. They’ve done a great job with their video. I’d love to see the model expand throughout Chicago – or perhaps a network of practitioners around the Chicago Region who are in alignment with the FG values. With a steady supply of equipment perhaps the product range can be expanded … nodes for a wireless mesh network truly owned and run by the community, and media servers for NPOs or community groups – infrastructure for local community information and communication services – think Community Intranet!

We need to spark our collective imagination and share the vision. This is a path towards digital excellence in Chicago.

The metaphor of the mash-up is perfect for our vision. We want to bring together the talents and assets and interests and needs of Chicago — Chicago techies and community activists, NPOs and others ready to give back to the community and grow the network. Fundamentally, our perspective is that while NPOs are addressing deep needs in the communities they serve, our city and the neighborhoods and professions and trades are full of resources and talents that we have but to put together in new and exciting ways. This has been my credo for some time … this perspective informed the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance and our campaign for Digital Excellence (in the context of the Citywide Wireless Initiative that wound up stalling out).

We started off the evening with an invitation to everyone to step up and join us as co-convenors for this effort going forward… we all introduced ourselves to the group and then we sunk our teeth into our first big question about what Chicago Non-Profit’s really need.

That is an important question, to be sure, but I’ve reached the point where I want to start from our strengths and assets. We need to figure out how to share our skills and talents. We don’t have to start from a scarcity mindset.

More important than the answers to the question we started with, or any alternative positive framing I might offer, is the question of conversation and story, and widening the circle of participants. What questions do we have to ask? What are the big questions that will open some real conversation for Chicago? Who do we address the big questions to? Can we ask ourselves the really hard questions?

For myself – the issue of new social technologies leaves me rather ambivalent. We have to start from our purposes, and not from the faddish new tools. We have to get clear about what we want for our city. Let our technology choices and investments stem from that vision.

Chicago – let’s wire (and unwire) ourselves.

Subscribe to GIO-Talk

Email:

Visit this group

There is also a more Chicago-centric mailing list, here:

Subscribe to GIO-Chicago

Email:

Visit this group

(Let’s not neglect open-hardware nor open-standards!)

With commodity tech running Free & Open Source Operating Systems and Software, priced at $300 $200, new (do I hear $100 per new system yet?) and with plenty or older hardware available for re-purposing, not to mention a proliferation of new networking and communication devices … we might take a moment to think of the potential ready to be unleashed, and to view how far we have come an achievement worthy of note.

What is next? Take our cheap hardware running software we’re free to modify and improve and interconnect, and let’s start interconnecting on our own terms.

We can and must move civil society communications infrastructure to the next level.

The International Summit for Community Wireless Networks is on the horizon… these are the folks who have been leading the way. We have the power to create the networks we want and need. If you were outraged at efforts to sink Net Neutrality or by the lack of a National Broadband Policy worthy of the name, if you are shocked by aspirations to filter, block and spy on content and services over the ‘Net, now is the time for us to (re)build our own.

These “institutions” are established to give the credibility of scholarly or scientific form to interest driven publications and statements, or to create enough noise so as to distract from or obscure the issues in play in that field. (Much as astroturf groups attempt to lend authentic public voice to particular positions, and keeping in mind that astroturf and industry funded policy think-tanks often operate in coordinated strategy.)

(NB: the science I am invoking here is human knowledge as related to practical activity… it may range from analysis of financial documents to questions of engineering potential, to environmental impact.)

If it were merely the production of ideas, studies, or reports where the content would stand on scientific or discursive merit, it would not be that bad. However, the capacity for publication and promotion of these ideas, along with resources to staff an idea (as opposed to staffing a line of inquiry or research) is the real danger.

One unfortunate result is junk science as basis for policy.

Another is loss of faith in the potential for rational (or even scientific) resolution of particular questions, especially governance and business matters with an increased likelihood that we allow mis-direction of our attention to the “freedom” of market actors.

We subjugate public policy to business interest.

Displacing civic matters with questions of business, finance, and consumption we short-change the equation we need to bring to balance. We exclude key variables.

For questions of communications policy and investment in public infrastructure, can we be objective?

Can we establish a framework for policy makers at local, regional and national levels?

In the wireless and broadband debates, can we leave open the fundamental questions surrounding ownership models, technology choice and range of network/technology/social purpose or utility?

These three questions are central to the effective planning of any infrastructure or technology project, whether in public context, or within an organization.

Among these questions we can outline a appropriate and necessary hierarchy: purpose, possibility, and plan.

Why do we have such propensity to take the plan as given, foreclosing possibilities inherent in technology and topology and tacking on purposes only to achieve sufficient buy-in from select groups? In part it’s the politics of contest, but along with a fairly uncritical acceptance of business assertions and a lack of faith in the rational potential of human discourse, we get the policy we settle for, and we settle for the policy we get.

Listening to people describe the Internet in their own terms and what they actually do with it opens an important space: there is such variety in the Internet, the really interesting things are not the new web 2.0 techniques or the hype surrounding them… it’s the actual interests that people bring to the ‘Net from their own life. When people speak about what they do others are prone to say “wow, I didn’t think about how that might be shared online, but now that I think bout it it makes sense!”

Which is to say there are tons of things online that we probably don’t think about but which pertain to the interests of others and it has become a tool in so many subcultures and obscure pursuits, allowing tremendous variety of community interests (and forms).

With the importance of the Web to our modern life, its use and potential in the full range of human experience and endeavor, it is fitting that we reflect on it’s governance and the basic communication freedoms which we should not take for granted.

This week Chicago played host to the fifth of six public hearings on media ownership convened by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Chicago Organizers did an excellent job in spreading the word and offering testimony.  The phrase “media ownership rules” here reflects an older way of thinking…  the various media – Cable, Broadcast TV and Radio and Print media need to be understood in the context of the Internet and the communications policy and infrastructure that supports it.   We live in a blended world…. the lines are blurred.

I didnt get to offer testimony, but it was quite clear that the people don’t buy the arguments favoring further relaxation of the ownership rules.  The people want the FCC to enforce the rules of the commission.    I’ll try to write more about the hearing later, but concentration of media ownership, and ownership of our communications backbone and last/first mile are clearly related issues, and we need to move towards more local ownership, production and control.  The FCC, and for that matter ICANN need to hear that message.

There are no tangents in holistic approaches to technology and community, so please bear with me as I tug that thread metaphor in another important direction.

Robust networks/redundancy; generosity/capacity.

Consider this image (evoked by Breitbart’s commentary on the as-yet missing (but promised) invisible thread): Sidney J. Mussberger (the character in the Hudsucker Proxy played by Paul Newman) dangling upside down at the ledge of a skyscraper reflecting on the need for the robust redundancy of a double stitch as the seam at his waist begins to give.

Mussberger (Newman) reflects on his (stingy/cynical) scoffing at his tailor’s suggestion of the double-stitch for his hand-tailored trousers. When a single-stitch will do, why spend more? He regards the tailor’s suggestion as an unnecessary expense and worse, an attempt to rip him off.

(Warning: Minor spoiler!) Mussberger’s pants don’t give way at the moment he needs them to hold together most. The Tailor generously gave him the double-stitch anyway.

What lessons to draw?

Along with tying our communities together in many horizontal relations (Neff and Philadephia’s “invisible thread”), and assurances of digital inclusion and economic development benefits there are public safety needs related to these networks. (We should explore how horizontality in planning and design would strengthen those purposes.) Robust, redundant networks are critical to public safety. Or, consider the demonstrated value of a small cadre of community wireless networkers post Katrina. (The lesson there being, volunteer knowledge and technical capacity, and the freedom to act in the deployment of networks is just as critical.)

We are being promised a lot of things in the selling of broadband and wireless networks. We had best make sure we are getting what we pay for and that we are prepared to pay enough. I wouldn’t bank my hopes on the generosity of the network vendors. Get what you need and get it in writing, then get it verified. You don’t want to be left in regret or wonder when hanging by a thread.