Jon Stewart on Net Neutrality
The Tubes Are Clogged! This explains it all.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Thursday, July 06, 2006
through experimenting with blip.tv I came across a tank that I have not seen yet rel="payment". basically an easy way to add a click a donation and steam to your blog vlog or web site.
it is in created by video vertigo...check it out rel="payment"
it is in created by video vertigo...check it out rel="payment"
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Alliance for Community Media Pre-Conference Session!
Hosted by Tactical Media Group and UMB Community Media & Technology Program
Community Media 21 C: A facilitated Seminar and Conversation in the Round
Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm
This three-hour seminar/discussion will explore the issues critical to community media, community development and local democratic communications. Invited practitioners and theorists from a diverse range of community media work will provide short statements or provocations that are then addressed by participants in a facilitated fashion. A partial list of topics or issues would include cross platform collaborations; framing PEG Access in a cross platform, networked environment; the bifurcation of television into a world of high-low res; creative economic development and the role of community media in that sector. While the event is primarily focused on stimulating dialogue and collaboration, there will be a modest attempt to build consensus around key elements in the discussion. The writing and video for the event will be shared via media streaming and an on-line multimedia publication.
This event will take place on the UMass campus, easily reached by public transit on the MBTA Subway Red Line.
Moderator:
Fred Johnson, The Community Media & Technology Program
University of Massachussetts Boston, College of Public & Community Service
Speakers:
Sue Buske, The Buske Group
Rebee Garofalo, The Community Media & Technology Program
University of Massachussetts Boston, College of Public & Community Service
Hosted by Tactical Media Group and UMB Community Media & Technology Program
Community Media 21 C: A facilitated Seminar and Conversation in the Round
Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm
This three-hour seminar/discussion will explore the issues critical to community media, community development and local democratic communications. Invited practitioners and theorists from a diverse range of community media work will provide short statements or provocations that are then addressed by participants in a facilitated fashion. A partial list of topics or issues would include cross platform collaborations; framing PEG Access in a cross platform, networked environment; the bifurcation of television into a world of high-low res; creative economic development and the role of community media in that sector. While the event is primarily focused on stimulating dialogue and collaboration, there will be a modest attempt to build consensus around key elements in the discussion. The writing and video for the event will be shared via media streaming and an on-line multimedia publication.
This event will take place on the UMass campus, easily reached by public transit on the MBTA Subway Red Line.
Moderator:
Speakers:
Sue Buske, The Buske Group
Rebee Garofalo, The Community Media & Technology Program
Friday, June 09, 2006
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Check out the newest version of the Telecommunications Policy Primer (last updated May 17, 2006)!
PS. This a Adobe Acrobat document, so you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to peruse it!
PS. This a Adobe Acrobat document, so you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to peruse it!
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
The video of last week's discussion is now available on the Tactical Media website: http://www.cpcs.umb.edu/cmt/tacticalmedia/
(Thanks Shannon!)
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Discussion Notes Part 6: Net Neutrality, Oppression & Youth
Even after the video cameras ran out of tape, the discussion continuted. Andy Carvin offered that there is other proposed legistlation that we need to be aware of in this arena: DOPA and the Internet Safety Act. He recommended going to CNet.com to read up more about these bills.
Fred also countered that being aware all all these bills and issues related to communications policy need to be in our awareness as citizens.
Nina LeNegra, a concerned resident of Boston and media literacy activist, expressed that all this sounds like a big media literacy problem, but also a problem of oppression. She's interested in where the discussion is of changing the larger oppressive models, such as violence in our community, in these media policy discussions. Jason Pramas, a UMB student and Mass Global Action activist, responded that he has been working with local groups to get organized around these issues in the Boston area. These groups are not just media focused groups and have the potentional to galvanize all different types of people in the media policy debate.
Another audience member added that we all just need to act and use our voices to show the strength of public media as the voice of our citizens. Nettrice Gaskins also added that in terms of education, new meda channels such as MySpace create a new dynamic opportunity to teach media literacy. Dan Coughlin again stressed that the process of these local community media creators talking with each other to come together to figure out their own interests, is actually making folks more proactive and visionary about what we can create in the future. This may be the first steps of us creating a new public media structure for our country. Finally, Fred responded to Nina that we are not naive to think media is the only issue out there - but we are asking people to make media their second issue. Because media is a big part of how we build our identities and express ourselves, it's very important.
Bamboo, from Envizion Artists, pointed out that people are not sensitized to see what's happening in the media sphere. But he sees this new colorful group of people getting organicly involved with making media. If media is an art, there is a lot of potency in media as a way to translate ideas. He stressed that we need to support organizations that are on the frontlines of working with youth, because they are teaching media literacy and advocacy with our next generation. (For more information on Envision Artists, email envizion@yahoo.com).
And that's all folks!
Even after the video cameras ran out of tape, the discussion continuted. Andy Carvin offered that there is other proposed legistlation that we need to be aware of in this arena: DOPA and the Internet Safety Act. He recommended going to CNet.com to read up more about these bills.
Fred also countered that being aware all all these bills and issues related to communications policy need to be in our awareness as citizens.
Nina LeNegra, a concerned resident of Boston and media literacy activist, expressed that all this sounds like a big media literacy problem, but also a problem of oppression. She's interested in where the discussion is of changing the larger oppressive models, such as violence in our community, in these media policy discussions. Jason Pramas, a UMB student and Mass Global Action activist, responded that he has been working with local groups to get organized around these issues in the Boston area. These groups are not just media focused groups and have the potentional to galvanize all different types of people in the media policy debate.
Another audience member added that we all just need to act and use our voices to show the strength of public media as the voice of our citizens. Nettrice Gaskins also added that in terms of education, new meda channels such as MySpace create a new dynamic opportunity to teach media literacy. Dan Coughlin again stressed that the process of these local community media creators talking with each other to come together to figure out their own interests, is actually making folks more proactive and visionary about what we can create in the future. This may be the first steps of us creating a new public media structure for our country. Finally, Fred responded to Nina that we are not naive to think media is the only issue out there - but we are asking people to make media their second issue. Because media is a big part of how we build our identities and express ourselves, it's very important.
Bamboo, from Envizion Artists, pointed out that people are not sensitized to see what's happening in the media sphere. But he sees this new colorful group of people getting organicly involved with making media. If media is an art, there is a lot of potency in media as a way to translate ideas. He stressed that we need to support organizations that are on the frontlines of working with youth, because they are teaching media literacy and advocacy with our next generation. (For more information on Envision Artists, email envizion@yahoo.com).
And that's all folks!
Discussion Notes Part 5: Questions for Dan about Net Neutrality
In response to Dan's presentation, James, a local community member asked for some clarification in the terms the panelist have been using. For instance, public media and community media. Fred Johnson responded that public media is media created with the public interest in mind. This definition can be confused with alternative or independant media. Community media is locally community based practices, as well as new social networks online.
James also asked about the net neutrality and the current bills. Andy Carvin pointed out that it's not necessarily about what's in the bill, but what is NOT in the bill. He also explained that network neutrality is the big companies wanting to control how people access content on their pipes. Network neutrality is about preserving universal, unregulated to content on the net. Andy really sees it as a free speech issue.
The hard idea to explain to people about net neutrality is how individual people will be affected. The companies that own the pipes want to be able to charge both users and content creators to use the Internet, that up to now has been free for anyone to access.
Another idea to wrap your head around is big companies like Verizon's interests in these issues. Andy suggested that while Verizon is making money now, their business model is outdated and they fear their ability to profit in the future unless they quickly get into these new markets (video and internet).
In response to Dan's presentation, James, a local community member asked for some clarification in the terms the panelist have been using. For instance, public media and community media. Fred Johnson responded that public media is media created with the public interest in mind. This definition can be confused with alternative or independant media. Community media is locally community based practices, as well as new social networks online.
James also asked about the net neutrality and the current bills. Andy Carvin pointed out that it's not necessarily about what's in the bill, but what is NOT in the bill. He also explained that network neutrality is the big companies wanting to control how people access content on their pipes. Network neutrality is about preserving universal, unregulated to content on the net. Andy really sees it as a free speech issue.
The hard idea to explain to people about net neutrality is how individual people will be affected. The companies that own the pipes want to be able to charge both users and content creators to use the Internet, that up to now has been free for anyone to access.
Another idea to wrap your head around is big companies like Verizon's interests in these issues. Andy suggested that while Verizon is making money now, their business model is outdated and they fear their ability to profit in the future unless they quickly get into these new markets (video and internet).
Discussion Notes Part 4: Dan Coughlin - Save Access
The next member of the panel was Dan Coughlin, the director of Manhatten Neighborhood Network - the people who spearheaded the beginning of the Save Access movement.
"MNN may be the most robust public access station in this country" - Fred Johnson
Dan dove right into the two pieces of legistlation in Congress right now around telecommunications policy. First is the COPE Act, which focuses mostly on video franchise agreements and Verizon's desire to branch out into the video market. In the past, local municipality franchise fees supported PEG access stations. So basically these fees built out not only public access stations but also institutional networks, such as police and library networks. This proposed legislation strips the ability of local municipalities to negotiate their own franchise agreements.
These bills represent a huge push by telephone companies to get into the video market, without abiding by the rules of public interest. For instance, any customer service complaints will go to the FCC, who is not prepared to address them. It also re-defines revenues on which franchise fees are based (it doesn't include VOIP or even Home Shopping Network revenues). Another area that is changed by this legistlation is build-out requirements. This is where these companies want to "cherry pick" and "red line" which communites where they want to build out service only to those places where they think they will make the most profit (and not serve ALL communities). This bill doesn't address the dynamic needs of the local municipalities - you can't expect a "one size fits all" structure to benefit all communities.
But we must understand, according to Dan, that these companies such as Verizon are "fighting for their lives" and using big amounts of money to lobby for these bills. TV for Us is a astro-turf group, funded by the big telco companies, who are taking out ads claiming that the this legistlation will lead to cheaper prices and more choice for consumers. Dan pointed out several ads by these interests to shape public opinion around these issues. According to ACM, these companies are spending $1 million a day on lobbying for these bills. There is also a mass shutout of these issues in the mass media - it's because of all the ad revenue these lobbying groups are doling out.
The good news from Dan is that the folks who are PEG access users are waking up to these threats and getting organized. These folks are not progressive community activists, but they are coming together to defend this "incredible network of non-commerical, community based media outlets." A success last week was getting the New York City Council to pass a resolution to support PEG access and against the current bills in Congress. (NYC is Verizon's hometown, by the way.) Folks showed up and galvanized their city councilors to support community media. Dan is excited by this organizing, which he hasn't seen for many years. He called for people to get involved in the May 24th protests, even if it's just standing in front of a Verizon store.
The next member of the panel was Dan Coughlin, the director of Manhatten Neighborhood Network - the people who spearheaded the beginning of the Save Access movement.
"MNN may be the most robust public access station in this country" - Fred Johnson
Dan dove right into the two pieces of legistlation in Congress right now around telecommunications policy. First is the COPE Act, which focuses mostly on video franchise agreements and Verizon's desire to branch out into the video market. In the past, local municipality franchise fees supported PEG access stations. So basically these fees built out not only public access stations but also institutional networks, such as police and library networks. This proposed legislation strips the ability of local municipalities to negotiate their own franchise agreements.
These bills represent a huge push by telephone companies to get into the video market, without abiding by the rules of public interest. For instance, any customer service complaints will go to the FCC, who is not prepared to address them. It also re-defines revenues on which franchise fees are based (it doesn't include VOIP or even Home Shopping Network revenues). Another area that is changed by this legistlation is build-out requirements. This is where these companies want to "cherry pick" and "red line" which communites where they want to build out service only to those places where they think they will make the most profit (and not serve ALL communities). This bill doesn't address the dynamic needs of the local municipalities - you can't expect a "one size fits all" structure to benefit all communities.
But we must understand, according to Dan, that these companies such as Verizon are "fighting for their lives" and using big amounts of money to lobby for these bills. TV for Us is a astro-turf group, funded by the big telco companies, who are taking out ads claiming that the this legistlation will lead to cheaper prices and more choice for consumers. Dan pointed out several ads by these interests to shape public opinion around these issues. According to ACM, these companies are spending $1 million a day on lobbying for these bills. There is also a mass shutout of these issues in the mass media - it's because of all the ad revenue these lobbying groups are doling out.
The good news from Dan is that the folks who are PEG access users are waking up to these threats and getting organized. These folks are not progressive community activists, but they are coming together to defend this "incredible network of non-commerical, community based media outlets." A success last week was getting the New York City Council to pass a resolution to support PEG access and against the current bills in Congress. (NYC is Verizon's hometown, by the way.) Folks showed up and galvanized their city councilors to support community media. Dan is excited by this organizing, which he hasn't seen for many years. He called for people to get involved in the May 24th protests, even if it's just standing in front of a Verizon store.
Discussion Notes Part 3: Defining Public Media (& It's Impact)
In response to Alyce, an audience member, Curtis Henderson from BNN, commented that it's very hard in the Boston area to explain to funders why they should support public media. Alyce responded that there isn't any current research to determine the real impact of public media, including the impact of PBS. There have some evaluations of the impact of children's programming on PBS, but not on large scale for the larger social impacts. Another audience member pointed out that these media are not designed based on idea of helping people who want to create social change as a tool. So for example, substance abuse programs can get funded, with supplemental media campaigns, but not specifically to make a film about substance abuse. If you get people involved in making media, there's the potential for more empowerment. But often we see that the making of the media may be distracting from actually making the change. The question is how can we use media.
James from Cambridge asked for some more explanation of what a "caucus" entailed. Alyce said this format is more participatory.
Nettrice brought up the idea that the new media ecomonics will affect media policy and how media makers will create content in the future.
A representative from the Benton Foundation asked if all these "citizen journalists" and unprofessional media makers really have the public interest in mind, or whether they are creating useless content. Alyce pointed out that there is no longer a public and that the crisis is not just in the media arena. Other public institutions like public education is also in crisis.
A CPCS student asked about telecenters in the US and if they provide free access to technology. Andy responded that some are, but those centers don't last.
Michael, a local blogger, questioned the progressive politics role in fighting the current legistlation. He thinks that grassroots organizations will "get murdered" in the fight against big corporation - however, there is potentional in organizing the millions of gameplayers and internet users as a massive constinuency. These folks might not respond to the language and arguments of progressive politics - he thinks we need to broaden our approach to incorporate these individuals in the fight. Andy responded that the Save The Internet campaign has a very diverse coalition of groups fighting for network neutrality - it's not only "those liberals" involved in the fight.
Finally, Andy responded to a comment about MySpace. Recent protests by Latino students were organized on MySpace - this type of free social networking online services has potential as a community organizing tool.
In response to Alyce, an audience member, Curtis Henderson from BNN, commented that it's very hard in the Boston area to explain to funders why they should support public media. Alyce responded that there isn't any current research to determine the real impact of public media, including the impact of PBS. There have some evaluations of the impact of children's programming on PBS, but not on large scale for the larger social impacts. Another audience member pointed out that these media are not designed based on idea of helping people who want to create social change as a tool. So for example, substance abuse programs can get funded, with supplemental media campaigns, but not specifically to make a film about substance abuse. If you get people involved in making media, there's the potential for more empowerment. But often we see that the making of the media may be distracting from actually making the change. The question is how can we use media.
James from Cambridge asked for some more explanation of what a "caucus" entailed. Alyce said this format is more participatory.
Nettrice brought up the idea that the new media ecomonics will affect media policy and how media makers will create content in the future.
A representative from the Benton Foundation asked if all these "citizen journalists" and unprofessional media makers really have the public interest in mind, or whether they are creating useless content. Alyce pointed out that there is no longer a public and that the crisis is not just in the media arena. Other public institutions like public education is also in crisis.
A CPCS student asked about telecenters in the US and if they provide free access to technology. Andy responded that some are, but those centers don't last.
Michael, a local blogger, questioned the progressive politics role in fighting the current legistlation. He thinks that grassroots organizations will "get murdered" in the fight against big corporation - however, there is potentional in organizing the millions of gameplayers and internet users as a massive constinuency. These folks might not respond to the language and arguments of progressive politics - he thinks we need to broaden our approach to incorporate these individuals in the fight. Andy responded that the Save The Internet campaign has a very diverse coalition of groups fighting for network neutrality - it's not only "those liberals" involved in the fight.
Finally, Andy responded to a comment about MySpace. Recent protests by Latino students were organized on MySpace - this type of free social networking online services has potential as a community organizing tool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
