Sun 30 Apr 2006
I uploaded some of my pics from the Podcast Academy conference. Here’s Tony Kahn from WGBH’s Morning Stories (pictured here on the left). Download the podcast of Tony’s talk from the conference.
Download other podcasts from the conference at the archive.
Sat 29 Apr 2006
I’m here at Day Two of The Podcast Academy at Boston University. Listen live here. If you missed anything, check out the archive. They’re posting archives there really fast!
Thu 27 Apr 2006
Broadcasting and Cable’s John Eggerton writes,
“Not included in the bill are voted-down amendments that would have held national video franchisees to a build-out schedule and toughened prohibitions on red-lining–building out more attractive parts of a franchise and bypassing ones with less potential return on investment or, as Ed Markey (D-MA) puts it, ‘the other side of the tracks.’ Still the bill as passed has language that requires telephone companies getting into video service to eventually serve all of a franchise, rather than allowing them to choose which parts of an area to offer service to, as the bill passed out of the Telecommunications Subcommittee allowed. That anti-redlining addition sat well with the cable industry, which had been pushing for it, but was not enough for Rep Markey and others who wanted build-out requirements as well.”
SaveAccess.org writes:
“Among the casualties today were these amendments;
1) Anti-Discrimination Amendment
An amendment to a national video franchising bill that would prevent discrimination of service based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. The amendment was defeated 29-23.
2) Build-Out Amendment (Red-lining)
An amendment that would have set build-out requirements for new franchisees under a national video franchise scheme being considered by Congress. Defeated 29-22, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
A weaker amendment passed, but since it set no timetable provisions concerning ‘build-out’, it will be nearly impossible to enforce - nice planning!.”
What good is net neutrality without net service? These laws are not just about the Internet, they are about voice, video, and the Internet.
At Comcast, “Digital Cable, High-Speed Internet, Comcast Digital Voice.”
At Verizon, “Phone, Internet, TV”
At Time Warner Cable, “Cable, High Speed Online, Digital Phone”
At AT&T/SBC, “Voice, Internet, Digital Satellite TV”
This legislation allows the largest voice, video, and Internet companies to serve only the communities of their choosing–the ones that will bring the most profits. What about everyone else?
This issue is not about network neutrality. It’s about non-network discrimination.
Thu 27 Apr 2006
From NPR, April 27, 2006
By Laura Sydell
“Congress defeats legislation that would have required all Internet traffic to be treated equally as it moves across the network. Telephone and cable companies want to start charging higher rates for faster and preferential connections.”
Listen to the NPR report here.
Thanks to Free Press for the pointer.
Wed 26 Apr 2006
From Media Policy Blog
-MPB
From SaveAccess.org:
“Today, consumers won yet another decisive victory with committee passage of the video choice bill.” - Verizon Lobbyist Peter Davidson
Despite the Telco spin above, the passage of COPE will have a devastating impact on public interest issues in telecommunication policy. Today, years of consumer protections and rules regulating industry ethics were either setback or summarily ignored.
The House Commerce Committee, by an unsurprising vote of 42 to 12 passed the COPE Bill. The Bill will now move to the full House for a vote. It’s likely that the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Barton, will lobby hard to prevent additional amendments in the full House version of the Bill.
Among the casualties today were these amendments;
1) Anti-Discrimination Amendment
An amendment to a national video franchising
bill that would prevent discrimination of service based on race, religion, sex, or national origin the amendment was defeated 29-23.
2) Build-Out Amendment (Red-lining)
An amendment that would have set build-out requirements for new franchises under a national video franchise scheme being considered by Congress. Defeated 29-22, introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
A weaker amendment passed, but since it set no timetable provisions concerning ‘build-out’, it will be nearly impossible to enforce.
3) Baldwin Amendment
An amendment that would detail and preserve Public, Educational, Governmental Access Channel (PEG) provisions. Defeated 20-19 (estimate)
4) The Markey Amendment
An amendment supporting and protecting Net Neutrality was voted down by a vote of 34 to 22.
Summary: Virtually all the amendments that would protect the public interest were defeated, this is unacceptable.
We will continue to post updates as we receive them, and a final voting scorecard when available. Please continue send your emails to Congress!
Recent News
Save the Internet press release House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet
B&C’s article House Commerce Approves National Franchise Bill
B&C’s article Telecom Bill Gets Cable-Friendlier
FAIR’s article Saving Independent Media
Mon 24 Apr 2006
Last week, I blogged being invited to Charlie Nesson’s table. It was great fun. Check out Charlie’s CCTV CyberlawWiki to follow along with and participate in the development of this most excellent relationship between The Berkman Center (where I work) & CCTV (where I volunteer).
Mon 24 Apr 2006
From the Benton Foundation
Telecom and Antitrust Task Force Hearing Tuesday on Network Neutrality
What: Oversight Hearing entitled, “Network Neutrality: Innovation, Competition and Nondiscriminatory Access”
Who: Telecom and Antitrust Task Force – Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), Chairman
When: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Where: 2141 Rayburn Building
THIS HEARING IS EXPECTED TO EXPLORE…
. What is “net neutrality?”
. Does net neutrality promote innovation and competition?
. Can broadband service providers “control” access to the Internet?
. Have broadband providers engaged in illegal or discriminatory conduct in violation of net neutrality principles?
. How have recent legal and regulatory developments affected competition for broadband services?
. How can broadband providers abuse their market power to limit access to Internet
content? Do they have an economic incentive to do so?
. How would access-tiering affect the competitive landscape of the telecommunications
market or the open architecture of the Internet?
. How does recent consolidation in the telecommunications marketplace affect broadband access?
. Can a network provider effectively manage network access or should a statutory
definition of network neutrality be adopted by Congress? What restrictions, if any,
should be placed on the network provider to ensure a competitive marketplace?
. What current authority exists to protect net neutrality?
. Would legislative proposals being considered by Congress promote or undermine net
neutrality?
. What is the role of antitrust in preventing Internet “discrimination”?
WITNESSES: Mr. Paul Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy, Amazon.com; Mr. Earl W. Comstock, President and CEO, COMPTEL; Mr. Walter B. McCormick, President and CEO, United States Telecom Association; and Mr. Timothy Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School.
Wed 19 Apr 2006
Dan Gillmor, author, blogger, and Berkman Fellow, convened Part III of his Citizen Media Series this evening at the Berkman Center. Below are my notes from the event. Thanks to Steve Garfield for the pics.
“Dan Gillmor Citizen Media Part III
2006-04-18″
Tonight, Dan wanted to have a discussion about truly bottom up stuff that’s going on. During the last part of the evening, we discussed what the rest of us non-news media people are doing. Dan started off by saying, “Let’s go through some sites and talk about them, sometimes briefly, sometimes in-depth”.
Here are a number of points that we’re covered at the event:
DG: “Not everything that we’re doing here is going to qualify as journalism.”
“Do we get something of value out of something people are doing on the web, whether it’s journalism or not, The point is, are we getting something of value?”
“Can we find the signal on the web, where there is a tremendous amount of noise.”
Dan often asked of the different social networking sites we visited (see list below), “Is what they are doing journalism?”
“My own view is that if people are finding out what they need to know, then at some level that is journalism. In the same way that you might go to a bar and check it against some gossip. And then check it to see that there is some validity.”
He brought up the site, Priuschat.com. Dan owns a Prius. He’s found some useful things here.
DG: “There is news [on the site] about the California Solar Incentives, but there are also forums about maintenance, troubleshooting, etc.”
He mentioned the forum for modifications, where dan said he goes to learn how to hack his Prius.
DG: “There is a hack that lets you turn off the annoying beep,” that goes off with the cars.
That seems useful.
DG: “This is, owners telling each other what’s going on and what works. It’s also about the news that you might want to know. As far as I am concerned, there is some journalism that’s going on here, but I welcome people that tell me that I am wrong.”
“When you are talking to a friend, I wouldn’t call that journalism One of the important things is that the line [between journalism and what may not be journalism] is difficult to discern sometimes.”
Dan mentioned the example of someone who happened to be on a train one day in Madrid, Spain and had a cell phone with a camera. “That photo is the most famous picture from that day.”
The BBC got hundreds of photos from people after an explosion in London. The photos were up on discussion boards with people saying different things, useful things. Dan says this can be “useful and noteworthy”.
Some of the other sites & blogs discussed during the evening, included:
1. Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) - DG: “At some point he provides a world view, people do send him things to point out, but he does not allow comments. We can talk about whether or not that is good or bad for blogs. Glenn is plainly serving a journalistic role at some point, but it is a quintessential weblog.”
2. Micro Persuasion - (from the site) “Steve Rubel explores how social software is transforming marketing, media and public relations.”
3. Boing Boing (of course). DG: “It’s the blog I use for serendipity.”
* Dan brought up something he is often asked, “What’s the business model for blogging? One thing is to make it part of your career.”
4. In looking at Wikipedia, Dan says “Everyone knows Wikipedia”. In the news category, one of the things that happens frequently (when there is some breaking news event) is that you can go there to get some good news background. There is a page on the Italian General Election. The level of detail that goes into a site like this is amazing.”
5. ChicagoCrime.org - (see left) DG: “This isn’t journalism is anyway that I know it, if I want to know something about a community. It’s almost live and interactive in ways that it never has been before.”
6. NowPublic.com (Dan’s on the advisory board) - DG: “It’s an in progress kind of site, at what point will in break into the category of news?”
7. Ourmedia.org - DG: “Ourmedia is a place to publish the things that you do. Along with the internet archive, the idea is for people to create things and then post them — to create a global media community of anything people want it to be. It varies from audio to video to music to text and many other things. At the very least, if you are creating videos at any level, if you put them under a Creative Commons license, that’s a license that explicity allows sharing. Then, Archive.org will host it at no charge. It’s good. [because] If you create a good video and put it on your personal website, you can get a large fee for all the downloads.”
8. iBrattleboro.com - DG: “These guys are putting together a pretty good place they are beating the local daily newspapers for local stories. The daily isn’t published on the weekends, but meanwhile these guys are covering it.”
9. The Northwest Voice - DG: “This one is done by the local newspaper, delivered every other Thursday, written largely by people in the community.”
10. Greensboro101.com - DG: “It has become a town square. When I read this, I think I get a pretty good idea of what’s going on.”
11. OhMyNews - DG: “It is probably the greatest success in the citizen media world, but there are also pro journalists involved, as well. This has been a huge success in korea. They do have an english language site.”
12. Gotham Gazette (NYC) - DG: “There are 51 sections of NYC that they are doing local news about and it is really quite good”. Something we are going to find out about in the next few years is just how hyper-local can we go?
13. Rocketboom - Dan asked Steve Garfield to talk about Rocketboom:
SG: “It is based out of NY. . . it started a little over a year ago. They report on local news that is important to them. Now it has viewership of over 300,000 a day.”It was mentioned that Steve Jobs debuted the video iPod, showed an episode of Rocketboom. You can get it through iTunes, BitTorrent, etc.
SG: “Everyday when there is a new show that comes out it will be automatically delivered to your computer, to your iPod . . .”
DG: “What’s the goal here?”
SG: “I don’t think it’s the next big thing, I think it’s to tell stories that aren’t being told by big media. There are people who report stories from around the world . . I do a report and send it in to Rockeboom.”
On Steve’s video for Rocketboom(during Monday’s Boston Marathon), which we checked out:
SG: “I’ve always been interested in TV and how it is made. I am giving people a look behind the scenes . . . This is what’s interesting to me.”
Now, back to the list . . .
14. YouTube - DG: “Here is one of the fastest growing sites on the web.”
15. Flickr (steve got me to sign up) - DG: “During every big event, you see tons and tons of pictures related to the event. The first example I found about this, is the bombing in jakarta, someone had it up on flickr before the news media got to the scene.”
DG: “Whoever took it at that moment was the media.”
We then switched gears to check out some of the attendees’ blogs & sites where some of the people who were there participate:
1. Exploit Boston - using movable type to publish an event calendar.
2. Newsvine - Critt said this is where he participates.
Discussion came up about making some sense of it all:
Q: All that stuff and all these people doing things separately. How do make create some order out of things?
A: (Dan) “Digg.com is an example of this, where people are leading the way voting on content.”
3. Press Pass TV (one of my personal favs) - An after school program that works with students to teaches them about journalism. They learn how to set up interviews and other interviewing skills. Students learn how to use Final Cut Pro, how to frame up a shot, and all of the skills needed to be video journalists. When they have enough video they air it on local cable access (that’s the ticket!).
They have the local site and are working with a national after school program called Citizen Schools. They have a local speaker series that brings in local journalists that come in a speak with students.
A great way to end the evening (or rather this post, because there was a lot more discussion). Look forward to Part IV next month at the Berkman Center.
I (pictured here, looking very tired, on the left) will be making the audio (that was webstreamed) from the event this evening available tomorrow or Friday at AudioBerkman (at the Berkman Center where I work during the day and sometimes at night).
To webstream and record the event this evening, I used an MBox with two microphones (one for Dan and one for the audience) and a Mac Mini with Quicktime Broadcaster.
Fri 14 Apr 2006
Comments of Nolan Bowie regarding New York Times article,
“Digital Divide Closing as Blacks Turn to Internet,” by Michel Marriott, 31 March 06
My overall impression in a nutshell: Wishful thinking, at best, but a misreading of the facts in order to come to the conclusion that the so-called digital divide has closed and, therefore, is history.
The article itself provides data and other information that can be read as showing that the digital divide is persistent among certain groups, including African Americans, and that it will likely continue among these groups unless government, at all levels, take affirmative initiatives to ensure true universal access to Internet connectivity and services. This is especially true in the area of the digital divide of recent vintage—access to high-speed (10-100MBPS and above) and ultra-speed broadband (1GBPS) that can accommodate instant information on demand including full-motion video, interactive distance learning, remote medical diagnosis, and the full-range of e-government and emergency services.
The article shows that:
In a Pew national survey of people 18 or older, some 39 percent of African Americans do not go online or use the Internet; that 20 percent of English-speaking Hispanic Americans do not use the Internet. It does not provide, however, the number of non-English-speaking Hispanic Americans who do not use the Internet. This missing figure is important since the great bulk of Internet content is available only in the English language as text or prose. This fact raises the question of the literacy requirement to use the Internet—essentially a text-based technology. National literacy surveys reported just last fall show that nearly 47 percent of U.S. adults have great difficulty reading and comprehending what they read. Tests show that that nearly half of the adult U.S. population reads only at the two lowest levels of literacy proficiency, Level 1 and Level 2. This recent report is a follow-up of a national adult literacy study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education done in 1992. There was virtually no improvement in adult literacy in the United States during the 13 periods between the reports. Other national literacy proficiency studies concerning fourth-grade children show that some 63 percent of black fourth-graders and some 58 percent of Hispanic fourth-graders are reading below the proficiency level expected of children in the fourth-grade. So much for “leaving no child behind.” Too often, they needlessly become illiterate and/or semi-literate adults. If anyone is looking for the origins of any digital divides concerning Internet access, then look no further that the divide between one’s ability to comprehend the arrangement of movable digits of type on the printed page.
Almost 10 percent of the 21 million Americans ages 12-17 (or 2,100,000 teenagers) so not use the Internet. Of this number, 13 percent of white teenagers do not use the Internet; 11 percent of Hispanic teenagers do not use the Internet; and, 23 percent of black teenagers do not use the Internet. One might wonder why so many black teenagers do not use the Internet, assuming that adequate numbers of public PCs and Internet connectivity are available in public schools and public libraries (saying nothing about the availability of skilled personnel to help teach and hand-hold novices through the wonders of cyberspace.)
The article acknowledges continuing divides based on age. A statement reads, “The gap in access among young Americans is less pronounced than among their parents’ generation…Age continues to be a strong predictor for Internet use.” But nowhere is there provided any numbers that would actually measure the distance of this age-divide.
The article recognizes that overall Internet use among blacks still significantly trails among whites—but fails to mention that even whites significantly trails in overall Internet use if compared to Asian American/Pacific Islanders—the demographic grouping that leads all other groups in PC/Internet access and use. This is especially true regarding Chinese Americans, who not only have far greater rates of Internet use and access to other information technologies, but also happen to be among the nations, best readers. Asian Americans ought to be included in any study or reporting about any digital divide or literacy proficiency test results in order to set the accurate standards and, moreover, to discuss the reasons for their performances, including cultural and historical reasons that usually do not get a proper discussion in digital divide debates and analysis.
It should be pointed out that while most (but not all) libraries and schools in the U.S. have public Internet access—it is very limited access and often-time supervised access since the limited supply of PCs or Internet appliances must be shared by many who wish to use them for a variety of purposes. Public access PCs and Internet connectivity are no substitute for owning a home PC with high-speed access. Only home use provides the ample opportunity needed to explore, experiment and play with the technology and its content necessary to develop the comfort-level and skill-base to make the Internet a viable information and communication tool.
The article mentions that education levels remain a major indicator of who is among the 137 million Americans using the Internet and who is not. But since black and brown Americans are generally among the lowest achievement groups in our schools (due to a lot of factors, including poverty, living in high-crime communities, coming from a single parent family, etc.), they make up a disproportionate number of those with less than a high school diploma versus whites and Asian Americans. So the digital divide, cannot e looked at as merely a divide between those who have access to PCs and Internet connectivity and those who do not. It is really a part of a much larger divide—an opportunity divide, a power divide, an education divide, a knowledge divide, a wealth divide, and, a racism divide.
In the case of wealth, why is it surprising that households with an annual income of more than $70,000 have greater access to PCs and the Internet than those households with incomes of less than $35,000 per year?
My colleague a the Kennedy School of Government, Pippa Norris, notes that members of minorities use the Internet to search for jobs and to connect to a wide variety of education opportunities. This is true. But this opportunity is only available to those ‘minorities’ who already have access to the Internet. For those who don’t, such otherwise vital access is a missing opportunity. Increasingly, certain websites, such as Craig’s List and e-Bay become important means of obtaining useful information that gives strategic advantages to those who have access to them. These two websites, for example, have become the essential means to obtain current classified advertising for the purchase of new homes or apartment rentals, or used automobiles or practically anything else that people want to sell or buy cheaply. Google has become a household word as it has become the primary means of initially searching for any and everything ever written and catalogued. Being without these kinds of information services is to be disadvantaged in the 21st century. The same will be true when most cities, states and the federal government fully embrace e-Government for all. Or will it be just for some. E-Government for some, I would remind you, does not produce e-democracy, economic justice, fairness or justice. It will only result in another form of privilege—benefiting the few while all taxpayers underwrite its deployment and costs of operation.
Professor Norris also sees progress on the horizon due to the declining cost of laptop and other computers, as well as efforts like those in Philadelphia to provide low-cost wireless Internet access, which she says are likely to increase online access for groups that have been slow to connect. I agree, but these efforts do not go far enough and they are hit and miss approaches to what is really needed as a national priority.
There is great hope that that the Nicroponte-led group at MIT will soon develop and market a wind-up notebook computer costing no more than $100. Also, cell phones are becoming increasingly more technologically advanced that they are not just used for voice communications but are actually Internet appliances, MP3 players, digital cameras, and game machines. And the price will always be on the decline as even newer, better, cheaper technology take their places, creating even more newer types of digital divides. What the City of Philadelphia is attempting to do by providing a low-cost wireless network throughout the city is a noble experiment, but it is not enough. What is needed is a viable national broadband policy coupled with a national education, public health and education policy. The real reason for any telecommunications network and communications system is to transfer and transmit content, data, information, content, intelligence from one place to another efficiently in order to empower individuals, communities, firms, states and nations. So, lets start with a big vision for the 21st century.
We currently have a national policy on education called, Leave No Child Behind. But what about adults? Many got left behind a long time ago. Shouldn’t we also include them in our vision of inclusiveness? After all, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, already calls for a nationwide and worldwide affordable communications network and service “for all the people of the United States.” Thus, the vision is already some 72 years old. It just needs to be readjusted and focused on our nation’s needs for the current century, where we find ourselves in a global knowledge-based economy. If our labor force is to be competitive, creative, and productive and our schools relevant and effective and our citizens healthy and engaged in the democratic process—then we need national public policies that enable and empower the people, including a state-of-the-art information infrastructure that is ubiquitous and universally available to all as public goods, public utilities, public commons. Today, the United States is the only highly industrial country that lacks a national broadband policy.
During the past several years, we’ve gone from being number one in broadband deployment to becoming number 16. However, it is now possible to make all of the United States a single Internet hot-zone, using a combination and variety of technologies that are interconnected, interoperable and interactive. Wireless technologies such as WiFi, WiMax, direct satellite, microwave, spread spectrum, cognitive radio, and reuse of over-the-air broadcast spectrum for unlicensed broadband, and, wire-based technologies including coaxial cable, optical fiber, and DSL, together can be used creatively to provide national, ubiquitous, universal access to high-speed and ultra-speed broad Internet connectivity.
The problem with implementation of such a policy is not lack of technology, nor lack of money, but instead, lack of sufficient vision and political leadership. During the 1930s, Congress passed legislation that required the telephone company (then there was only one—AT&T) to provide affordable telephone line service to all who wanted such ‘essential’ service. The policy was called the “Universal Service Obligation.” And by the late 1970s, telephone penetration in the United States reached approximately 93 percent of all households. African Americans and poor people generally were disproportionately represented among the 7 percent households without telephone service then, even with lifeline and other subsidized services mandated by government.
It now appears that these same groups, blacks, people of color, and poor people will again be among the unconnected in the emerging Information Society—if we leave the issues of ubiquitous access and universal service to the market alone.
Fri 14 Apr 2006
On the Beyond Broadacast Blog, the organizers are looking for input from you about which tracks you’d like to see for Day Two of the conference. Dean Jansen writes
“On day two, the conference will shift gears, from traditional panels and speakers, to highly participatory working groups. Each group is oriented around a topic, and we want attendees to help us choose these themes. The themes are highly flexible; if someone dreams up an interesting topic after listening to the panelists on the first day, that idea can still be integrated into a group. However, getting an early start on evolving and discussing topics is going to make room for everyone to begin deciding what they want to bring to their working group. We have already planned a few groups with topics, such as: “Policy Advocacy,” “Sustainability,” and “Fostering Interaction Between Participants.”
