Friday, October 27, 2006











Important Critical Speech on Wikipedia

Just found this speech from last April that's critical of the way Wikipedia is constructed. Wish I'd seen it before I attended the Wikimania Conference at Harvard Law last summer. Would made for some good debate fodder. A bit choppy in spots, but certainly worth a look.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

here's my e-mail if anyone needs to get in touch! thanks!
steven
rumblefish_13@yahoo.com

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Tactical Media Minutes October 19, 2006
Notes: Steven
Facilitation: John

Housekeeping
Regarding Workshops
-Production and editing workshops will be presented ASAP
-reasoning is that they represent empowering skills that will allow us to take control of future study
-Reminder about Tactical Media Project
-we are in the process of doing 4 competencies in 2 semesters
-this is an important focus because it requires us to work
together outside of Thursday evening meetings
-if anyone has issue with this please see Fred
-Misc.
-everyone’s e-mail should be up on the blog so we can contact each other individually about projects, etc.
-Jay circulated a note taking/facilitation sign-up sheet. Please sign-up for future meetings so time is not wasted on deciding who is doing what.

Content
-Pam and Fred presented a discussion on public policy to recap last year’s national legislation
-be sure to get the Tactical Media Tool Kit handout from Pam
-the goal is to get this up on the blog and also to possibly develop it into a wiki project to enhance interaction
-Moyers on America was implemented as an audio-visual tool highlighting communication policy issues. Be sure to watch it!!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/
-the evening was divided into three segments
-NET NUETRALITY
-KEY CONCEPTS (Pam provided a useful handout)
-OUTLINE ON COMMUNICATION POLICY (also a handout)

Net Neutrality
-Def: the free flow of information over the internet characterized by open access to all and free content for all.
-The struggle: telecom companies are trying, through national legislation, to create a two-tiered internet where larger content providers will pay more for access as compared to smaller content providers who cannot afford the fee. This will establish an environment of unequal access and a skewed internet based on market rather than democratic principles.
-Telecom agenda: there has been a concerted effort on behalf of the telecom industry to gain control of the internet.
-Duopoly: an important term that refers to the cornering of the Information Super Highway market by cable and phone giants
How We Have Arrived to the Current Situation
-Moyers documentary sheds light on this issue
-the basics
-in the early 90s the federal government created industrial policy to induce telecom companies to develop Information Super Highway infrastructure
-this was accomplished through tax breaks and subsidies
-the goal was to develop internet technology (speed!!) by replacing broadband copper wiring with much faster fiber optics
-the phone companies did not hold up their end of the bargain and basically pocketed the money
-this was largely due to regulatory capture
-this term refers to the unethical relationship between regulators and industry lobbyists
The Industry’s Reasons for Doing Away with Net Neutrality
-to set up a “toll road” that would serve to “unclog” internet traffic making it more efficient
-view Moyers on America series paying particular attention to segment with Mike McCrurry, co-chairman of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telecommunication-related businesses
Skeptics’ Rebuttal
-phone companies’ true motive is monetary gain
-favoritsm and discriminatory practices in terms of accessibility
Net Neutrality Points to Ponder
-H.R. 5252 (net neutrality bill)
-http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1882
-Stevens Bill (telecom reform bill)
-http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2183
-National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
-http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
-net neutrality is a complex issue
-slow lane
-fast lane
-common carriage/common technology issues under attack
-Common Carriage: A network usage principle that guarantees that no customer seeking reasonable service — and able to pay a competitive price — would be denied lawful use of a transportation service or would otherwise be discriminated against. For centuries, common carriage has played an important role in the infrastructure services of transportation; in the US, it was broadly applied to railroads and later communications media. Today the concept is under threat by large cable and telephone companies who seek to get further into the business of using their “tracks” to sell their own packets of digital content to the end user. By wielding their network control to discriminate against other sellers they gain an unfair advantage in the content marketplace.(http://freepress.net/att/=glossary)

KEY CONCEPTS

-Net Neutrality
-Concentration of Ownership
-Digital Divide
-Access to Internet
-Assistive Technology
-Web Content Accessibility
-Public Interest
-Community Programming
-Copyright Law
-Intellectual Property Rights

OUTLINE
-Fred quickly elaborated upon an outline entitled Tactical Media Communication Policy Notes. Be sure to get one from Pam as it denotes many important issues about the current media and technology landscape.

Misc. Thoughts
-cable and phone companies=the internet!
-Comcast is the primary cable company in Boston
-bound to municipal contracts
-RCN is a smaller franchise
-agreements not as comprehensive at the local level
-not responsible to buildout
-costs less than Comcast
-not available everywhere
-United States is currently 16th internationally in terms of internet technological development
-largely due to the greed of the phone giants
-types of internet connections
-dial-up (extremely slow)
-broadband (10-30x faster than dial-up)
-fiber optics (40x faster than broadband)
-U.S. is still a broadband market
-downloading Library of Congress via dial-up=82 years
-downloading Library of Congress via fiber optics=45 seconds!!
-cost of service
-U.S. broadband=$40 per month
-South Korea and Japan fiber optic access=$40 per month
-in the United States the phone companies have not been held accountable for their actions.
-Fred posed the question, “Why is communications policy so important?”
-answer: because its implications and applications are at the core of the socio-cultural aspects of democratic interaction.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Tactical Media Umass Boston _ Fall 2006
Minutes from October 12, 2006
CPCS- Taylor Center: 5:40PM
Facilitator: Jay Cleary
Discussion topic: Video Franchising
Attendees: Cisco, Jason, Fred, Steven, Charlotte, Jay, Journel, Guiled, Sequioa and John. Discussion of the telecommunications policy was postponed and rescheduled to the next class (09/19/2006).
6:45PM
Housekeeping comments:
Sequioa requested a recap of the blog functioning and purpose Fred explained that the Tactical Media blog is a discussion forum that is open to any interesting subjects relating to media and culture. To Do Fred to remind Shannon to put all bloggers on the blog roll Fred suggested that former and current Tactical Media associates meet one a month to brainstorm and develop projects together. Date and time to determine Proposed day (Wednesday or Thursday)
Discussion subject: Video Franchising
Telecom companies versus Public interest
6:00 PM
Fred Johnson introduced a short video documentary on the subject of cable franchising available on http://blip.tv/ (blip.tv is a video sharing site). The documentary reveals that local franchising is vital to protect the public interest within our municipalities.
The 13 minute-long video documentary wonderfully portrays the viewpoint of different local government staff and public officials, as well as consultants, community activists, organizers and advocates. They clearly explain how national franchising will affect public interest.
In contrast to the rhetoric stated that national franchising will provide better services and rates, they present a radically different approach revealing and maintaining that local franchising is essential for our communities. They acknowledge that national franchising will deprive local government of the authority to enforce or require that telecommunication companies ensure sufficient services within our cities and hold them accountable for services they provide in each of our community. National franchising will be a threat to consumers’ protection and rights.
Background:
The documentary was produced by NATOA in association with Media Working Group. “Media Working Group founded in 1987, is a non-profit media education, production, research and development organization that provides an organizational framework for diverse multi-disciplinary work in media culture.” http://www.mwg.org/ . “The mission of NATOA is to support and serve the communications needs and interests of local governments.” http://www.natoa.org/ Watch the documentary http://blip.tv/file/39272/ Fred Johnson _ Producer/Director Discussion & debate:
Key words and concepts used during the discussion followed the documentary.
Franchising:
Local franchising
National franchising
Video franchising
Cable franchising
Redlining Public interest
Framing issues
Competition Competitive landscape
Community Media
During a fascinating discussion attendees led by Fred Johnson addressed the issues highlighted in the documentary (video franchising). Fred Johnson reiterated that local franchising is fundamental for the public interest. He described cable franchising as an arrangement or contract signed between the municipality and a cable company that is using local streets and sidewalks. The cable company accepts to provide services to the community to place its equipment in the public right-of-way.
Jason voiced his concern relating to the idea of telecom companies bypassing local authority to use the public right-of-way, throwing away local franchising. Jason stated “what would happen to the public interest when/if the telecom companies finally find their way to provide cable services without contracting with local government?” “and what is the next step?” Join us this Thursday October 19, 2006 to find out. Jason’s concern or question will be discussed at the Tactical Media’s next meeting at 5:30 PM (10/19/2006).
Tactical Media Projects:
6:40 PM
Jay (jay@cleary4.com ), Charlotte (bar_tender611@yahoo.com ), Steven (romblefish13@yoahoo.com ) and John (john.pantazeloz001@umb.edu ) were assigned the responsibility to plan 2 workshops:
Production (video) and post-production (editing).
The group will: Plan and advertise the workshops
Determine resources, time and date
Fred proposed to assist in the planning process
Additional projects will be identified on October 19, 2006
Pam is expected to introduce the discussion on telecom policy: Policy Recap from last year.
Class adjourned at 7:05 PM

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

this is a muat see video!! it not only alludes to a media agaenda that is is not representative of citizens but also insightful as to the as amy puts it the "fiasco" in iraq. gimme some thoughts!!!



Tuesday, October 17, 2006

OPPS: AT&T/BELLSOUTH FORGETS NET NEUTRALITY
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
AT&T-BellSouth has filed a new version of its proposed merger
conditions with the FCC. The conditions were made public late Friday
(Oct. 13) after commission Democrats asked them to be put out for
public comment, effectively blocking a vote on the merger at least
until that is done. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin agreed on a 10-day
comment period and has rescheduled a vote for Nov. 3. In its revised
filing, AT&T/BellSouth pointed to a typo in the original and to a key
omission: a "potential merger condition on network neutrality." That
omitted condition would be that, for 30 months from the closing of
the deal, "AT&T/BellSouth will conduct business in a manner that
comports with the principles set forth in the FCC's" Network
Neutrality policy statement of Sept 23, 2005. That statement outlined
a new framework for broadband Internet access in the wake of its two
decisions that summer that cable and telephone companies do not have
to make their networks available to unaffiliated Internet Service
Providers. At the same time, it spelled out antidiscrimination
principles it expected them to follow, or else.



let's see now, we'll give you net nuetrality for 30 months and then kiss it goodbye. sounds fair to me and very democratic!! unreal!!!!!

Monday, October 16, 2006

Tactical Media
Umass Boston _ Fall 2006
Minutes from October 12, 2006
CPCS- Taylor Center: 5:40PM
Facilitator: Jay Cleary
Discussion topic: Video Franchising
Attendees: Cisco, Jason, Fred, Steven, Charlotte, Jay, Journel, Guiled, Sequioa and John.

Discussion of the telecommunications policy was postponed and rescheduled to the next class (09/19/2006).
6:45PM
Housekeeping comments:

Sequioa requested a recap of the blog functioning and purpose
Fred explained that the Tactical Media blog is a discussion forum that is open to any interesting subjects relating to media and culture.

To Do
Fred to remind Shannon to put all bloggers on the blog roll
Fred suggested that former and current Tactical Media associates meet one a month to brainstorm and develop projects together.
Date and time to determine
Proposed day (Wednesday or Thursday)

Discussion subject:
Video Franchising
Telecom companies versus Public interest

6:00 PM
Fred Johnson introduced a short video documentary on the subject of cable franchising available on http://blip.tv/ (blip.tv is a video sharing site). The documentary reveals that local franchising is vital to protect the public interest within our municipalities.
The 13 minute-long video documentary wonderfully portrays the viewpoint of different local government staff and public officials, as well as consultants, community activists, organizers and advocates. They clearly explain how national franchising will affect public interest.
In contrast to the rhetoric stated that national franchising will provide better services and rates, they present a radically different approach revealing and maintaining that local franchising is essential for our communities. They acknowledge that national franchising will deprive local government of the authority to enforce or require that telecommunication companies ensure sufficient services within our cities and hold them accountable for services they provide in each of our community.
National franchising will be a threat to consumers’ protection and rights.


Background:
The documentary was produced by NATOA in association with Media Working Group.
“Media Working Group founded in 1987, is a non-profit media education, production, research and development organization that provides an organizational framework for diverse multi-disciplinary work in media culture.” http://www.mwg.org/ .
“The mission of NATOA is to support and serve the communications needs and interests of local governments.”
http://www.natoa.org/

Watch the documentary http://blip.tv/file/39272/ Fred Johnson _ Producer/Director

Discussion & debate:
Key words and concepts used during the discussion followed the documentary.
Franchising:
Local franchising National franchising Video franchising
Cable franchising
Redlining
Public interest
Framing issues
Competition
Competitive landscape
Community Media
During a fascinating discussion attendees led by Fred Johnson addressed the issues highlighted in the documentary (video franchising).
Fred Johnson reiterated that local franchising is fundamental for the public interest. He described cable franchising as an arrangement or contract signed between the municipality and a cable company that is using local streets and sidewalks. The cable company accepts to provide services to the community to place its equipment in the public right-of-way.
Jason voiced his concern relating to the idea of telecom companies bypass local authority to use the public right-of-way, throwing away local franchising.
Jason stated “what would happen to the public interest when/if the telecom companies finally find their way to provide cable services without contracting with local government?” “and what is the next step?”
Join us this Thursday October 19, 2006 to find out.
Jason’s concern or question will be discussed at the Tactical Media’s next meeting at 5:30 PM (10/19/2006).


Tactical Media Projects:
6:40 PM
Jay (jay@cleary4.com ), Charlotte (bar_tender611@yahoo.com ), Steven (romblefish-13@yoahoo.com ) and John (john.pantazeloz001@umb.edu ) were assigned the responsibility to plan 2 workshops:

Production (video) and post-production (editing).
The group will:
Plan and advertise the workshops
Determine resources, time and date
Fred proposed to assist in the planning process

Additional projects will be identified on October 19, 2006
Pam is expected to introduce the discussion on telecom policy: Policy Recap from last year

Class adjourned at 7:05 PM

Friday, October 13, 2006

hi everybody,
i was thinking about the question that jason and fred asked last night in terms of what would happen next if the telecom companies are able to penetrate the cable market and offer cable services bypassing franchising, buildout, and right-of-way issues. well i watched the video from last night again and i think what will happen next is a power struggle over internet services within the same context of community needs and stipulations v. an all out market-focused free for all. anyone have similar or different viewpoints? see ya!

Thursday, October 12, 2006

check out these two videos on net nuetrality!!

http://action.freepress.net/ct/A1sxr111LqVL/
The Merger and Me

http://action.freepress.net/ct/_psxr111LqVS/
Money Well Spent
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/mabell
Take Action: Don't Let Ma Bell Monopolize the Internet
i urge you all to look here and sign this thing!! thanks!
ok so it's on everybody!! the department of justice approved the at&t/bell south merger. now it goes to the fcc for final approval. i wonder what they are going to do!!!?? just kidding. time to put pressure on these pigs and tell them to get their greedy hands off the internet. go here and learn more about this and in particular net nuetrality.

http://www.freepress.net/att/
Free Press : Stop the AT&T/BellSouth Merger

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Tactical Meeting Minutes - September 28, 2006


Housekeeping

Fred spoke briefly about attendance requirements. Attendance at the tactical media meetings is required in order to successfully complete your competencies. See the syllabus (http://fredjohnson.mwg.org/telecom/) for attendance requirements.

Fred suggested another book for those interested in additional reading. Fissures in the Mediascape: An International Study of Citizens' Media (Hampton Press Communication Series (Communication Alternatives Subseries).) (Hardcover) by Clemencia Rodriguez http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1572733683/ref=sib_dp_top_ex/102-1713845-6616960?ie=UTF8&p=S00P#reader-link

Fred distributed two handouts. The first can help with our definitions of media. We discussed the use of the Video Praxis and use for future reference.

  1. Citizen’s Media: Dissent in the Realm of the Symbolic
  2. Video Praxis: Outline of a typology


Brief Question and answer period.


Projects

We started a list of projects. We briefly discussed them and Fred encouraged people to consider other projects. We will continue to define, discuss and add to the following list of possibilities.

  1. UMB Free
  2. Project Hope
  3. Collaborative Research
  4. Writing for Mass Media
  5. Wikipedia Teams


Workshops

We discussed the need to provide our teams with workshops to enhance our knowledge base. Fred wants us to come up with and provide the needed workshops. We briefly discussed the following list.

  1. Video screenings
  2. Video instruction
  3. Video editing instruction
  4. Guest speakers


Presentation

Jason gave a presentation to the group on Collaborative Media. It will be available online for anyone who missed it. The following is an incomplete outline of its content.

  1. What is collaborative media and what it is not
  2. AKA Web 2.0
  3. Examples of collaborative media. Some are clearly collaborative media and some can be considered collaborative depending on how they are developed and implemented.

o Wiki

    • Social networking
    • Social bookmaking
    • RSS
    • MMOGs
    • Peer-to-Peer networks
    • Blogs
    • Podcasts

i'm reading all this commotion going on in LA about the FCC impending vote on media ownership restirctions and i am very much opposed to media ownership concentration. i don't think these huge companies should be able to own newspapers and TV stations in the same market. also the percentage of viewres that a single tv station can reach is an issue. what really concens me, however, is who the hell cares who owns what and where it reaches if it's all more or less the same crap. in other words i'm not conviced that more "independent" distribution of mainstream media will lessen the mass indoctrination of the public. the mainstream is still the most widely used source of media and it requires radical change not liberal/conservative elitist tit for tat!!!

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Ultimately, technology holds the promise of turning the entire power structure on its head, empowering grassroots citizens who previously felt voiceless.

http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/webbuilding/page5819.cfm
Using Technology to Create a New Kind of Public Commons

no wonder the power structure wants to monoplolize the net and everything else it can get its hands on!! thanks for sending this guled!!