MTN & Portals
From:
Tim Salo
Date:
Nov 11 00:10 UTC
Short link
Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2007, at 10:30 PM, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
>
>> A proposal to shift the City's funding that enables residents'
>> communications from cable TV to the Internet appears to me to
>> be a good, if belated, move.
>>
>> My short answer is: Cable TV is so twentieth century.
>>
>> What role, if any, is left for public-access cable TV in the era
>> of ubiquitous Internet access?
>
> The short answer is this is not a question of either media or
> Internet. It is not broadcast versus one to one information. There is
> very little on the Internet that is actually two-way interactive. The
> public needs both public access and Internet access. The 21st century
> I am sure will see integration happen to a high degree with more
> interaction as the public demand goes up. And along the way we will
> still need "portals" like libraries that even the field between rich
> and poor in terms of total information access.
Contrary to the writer's assertion, I believe that the dramatic
and inherent differences between media _are_ at the heart of the
matter. Again, public-access cable channels enable a small number
of people to disseminate video-based information to a relatively
small number of Minneapolis residents. And, ignoring such
innovations as Call-in Karaoke
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6148895130802480398&hl=en>
public-access cable channels are a one-way, broadcast medium.
And, again contrary to the writer's assertion, the inherent two-way
nature of the Internet is heavily used. It enables _this_
very discussion (try that on cable). It enables real-time,
interactive, text-based messaging, both one-to-one and
many-to-many. The Internet enables real-time, interactive voice
messaging. I use both a commercial voice-over-IP service
(Vonage) and a free service (Skype). The Internet enables
interactive video. In fact, many instant messaging programs
support interactive text, voice and video. Beyond that, the
Internet enables residents to interact with their elected
officials [I assume council members read their e-mail], with
city departments, and with pretty much every one else, anywhere
in the world. I can watch city council meetings, either in
real time or after-the-fact on my own schedule. I guess that
this is sort of possible over cable TV, but it isn't nearly
as convenient. (Need I continue? I am a bit surprised at
having this conversation...)
So, my basic questions remain: are public-access cable channels
still relevant? Or, should the City shift its resources from
public-access cable TV to the Internet?
Obviously, I think that public-access TV is pretty close to
irrelevant. But, I am certainly willing to listen to arguments
to the contrary. However, so far I haven't heard any and
can't find any [on the Internet]. The only references to
the Internet I could find on MTN's Web site [on the Internet]
were:
o We used to do stuff on the Internet, but now we don't
[because the cable company objected, if I understand
correctly].
o We help organizations create Web pages.
o We can help you put your video on the Internet, if your
video is on DV tape [tape??? tape!!?? I haven't used
tape for anything since, well, since the last century...]
o "Belief that Public Access may not be as necessary in the
Internet Age" is a "threat". (MTN Business Plan, October 4,
2004) [Oh, really!!???]
Having said that, I also want to ask the question: Is the
future of MTN inextricably tied to the relevance of
public-access cable TV? Or, can MTN use the Internet, rather
than cable TV, to support its [presumed] mission of "empowering
communities and facilitating resident communication"?