MTN & Portals
From:
Peter Fleck
Date:
2007 Nov 12 19:34 UTC
Short link
> Hundreds of Minneapolis residents cited the critical need for local,
community-based Internet content to be made available via the USI Wireless
Minneapolis network as part of the Community Benefits Agreement
process/meetings held in 2006-2007.
I'm sure not arguing against community-based content or the community
portals as a delivery system. The issue is funding. Residents weren't
asked (as far as I know) to choose between public access cable and
internet community portal systems. I don't know what the answer to
that question would be but the fact right now is that we do have a
cable system delivering the community-based content to disenfranchised
communities and in native languages to boot.
The community portal system is still a coming attraction as is the
city-wide Wi-Fi network.
I think there is another factor to and I'm going to use the Somali
community as an example. What if they are not comfortable using the
Internet and prefer television for the near-term. Shouldn't we
continue to provide the rich locally-produced community-based content
via public access for the foreseeable future? It can certainly be
broadcast over the Internet in addition to the public access channel.
Peter
On Nov 12, 2007 11:00 AM, Catherine Settanni <cms@technologypower.org> wrote:
> Hundreds of Minneapolis residents cited the critical need for local,
community-based Internet content to be made available via the USI Wireless
Minneapolis network as part of the Community Benefits Agreement
process/meetings held in 2006-2007.
>
> The "Civic Garden"(Portal Project) provides for this resource, FREE-- to all
who can get the wireless signal (or have a wireless modem). This is for ALL
city residents, not just USI Wireless Network or other Internet subscribers,
and is a great way to introduce Internet use to new users (especially new
Immigrant families who currently don't use the Internet for a variety of
reasons).
>
> USI wireless is fully supporting the project as per the contract, by
providing the server, access to the login page, and technical support. In
addition, they've contributed 20K in additional funds to help get the interim
portal pages built out in advance of the December launch. The contract does not
call for USIW to provide any financial support. It should also be noted that
this private company is essentially offering a free level of Internet service
to all Minneapolis residents, which is incredibly valuable. They have NO
editorial control or say over any content decision-making related to this
project; the sites included were selected as a result of community surveys
(collected both on and off-line) over the past 24 months.
>
> Actually, the contract does not say who should pay for the Portal project, or
where the money will come from--but it does say that any revenues that derive
from it must be used to support the further development of the Portal/Civic
Garden, and train community content producers.
>
> It's important to understand that the Portal project was identified as a
critical component of the Community Benefits Agreement(CBA). Residents who
participated in CBA efforts represent a diversity of disenfranchised
communities who understand that social and economic inclusion now depend on
"digital inclusion"-- which the Minneapolis Digital Inclusion Task Force
defined as including (free) access to online community content and resources.
.