All posts in the topic MTN & Portals (Short link)
Summary
- There are 32 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Mike Wassenaar at 2007 Nov 23 16:39 UTC
I just heard about a proposal of Mayor Rybak's to cut MTN funding by $100,000 and use that money to fund the wireless community portals. http://blogs.citypages.com/ctg/2007/11/minneapolis_cab.php Does anyone have more information as to how this money would be used? Has anyone seen a plan or budget?
Peter Fleck wrote: > I just heard about a proposal of Mayor Rybak's to cut MTN funding by > $100,000 and use that money to fund the wireless community portals. > > http://blogs.citypages.com/ctg/2007/11/minneapolis_cab.php > > Does anyone have more information as to how this money would be used? > Has anyone seen a plan or budget? > > We have community portals - these are called libraries. Perhaps the Mayor should reconsider giving them away. True story: a friend was leaving an MPL library at closing time this fall and watched a guy drive up, remove a lawn chair and laptop from his car, and settle in next to the library wall getting to work on his computer. After hours. (Maybe we need some outdoor electrical connections for outdoor library connectors.) This is not so crazy. I was vacationing in WI and in the nearby small town, the library was only open limited hours a couple days a week. No other hot spots in town. The librarian urged me to connect via laptop standing outside the library. This method hadn't crossed my mind - I'm too used to coffee shops. I thought MTN was paid for by the cable contract. Did the City include this when changing cable companies? Shawne FitzGerald Powderhorn
There is a plan. Handed out tonight at the Nokomis East city budget
presentation:
"Community and Neighborhood Portals". Didn't see the 2 pg. plan on the website,
but it's probably there...Highlights as a "p.s."
It is an ambitious program and looks worthwhile.
That isn't the question. What is, isthe funding source (MTN) and why it is in
excess of the wireless communitybenefits packagenegotiated with the wireless
provider.
Tonight's handout states:
"The Community Benefits Agreement with US Internet Wireless includes several
elements that are not linked to the Digital Inclusion Fund or in its Advisors
purveiw. The city of Minneapolis needs a plan for oversight of those elements."
Why wasn't it in the CBA? What was in the agreement? Why did the city feel it
necessary to expand offerings if it couldn't find the money except by
redirecting MTN. Why wasn't MTN informed before being ambushed..with no time to
work this out with the Mayor? Pretty heavy-handed.
From an earlier entry on the city website:
"The groundbreaking set of community benefits in the Minneapolis contract
leverages the success of the network to help bridge the digital divide.
Highlights include:
USI Wireless will provide $500,000 to create a digital inclusion fund that will
be used to promote affordable Internet access, low-cost hardware, local content
and training. In addition, US Internet will direct a minimum of five percent of
the networks net profits to a digital inclusion fund for ongoing digital
inclusion efforts. In total, it is expected that about $11 million will go into
the digital inclusion fund over the 10-year term of the contract. "
That 'local content and training'(neighborhood portals) IS within the fund's
'purview" .
Isn't there enough money here to cover this new initiative without redirecting
the very small MTN budget? Is that half-million gone already? What is it
ear-marked for?
Because of LGA cuts, it was explained tonight that all departments took cuts
...although there is enough money to establish a new Community engagement
department within the Communications dept.
MTN already took its cut...$50,000.On top of that is a 'one- time' $100,000 cut
to an already very small budget. This is over 20% of MTN's budget. I think we
also know how fleeting a promise of just a one-time cut can be. But that's
irrelevant, can MTN even handle a one year reduction of this magnitude?
$100,000 can certainly be found amongother departments with huge budgets.
This certainly is not community engagement...when it impacts a wide range of
minority, cultural, safety, news programs found on MTN. Not just the Somali
community (City pages) uses MTN to communicate with their
constituences...Hmong, Hispanic...community interests and topics (a number of
health shows in several languages). Thee programs 'look like' the communities
they are serving. The skills learned at this station (alot of
volunteers)benefit the community in other ways.
A little history on MTN...around 2003, the city put pressure on MTN to become a
city department. People rose up and protested the impact on programing freedom
and journalistic integrity. It was feared the city would, if not control, would
be iin a postion to unduly influence progamming, content and much more..By
drastically cutting the budget, the same result can be obtained & move this
station 'into thefold'...if this starvation strategysound familiar...
Best wishes,
cheryl luger
nokomis east
PS If interested contact the city for the program (communications dept).
Highlights include:
"program planning, technology 'production', and community-focused
engagement/involvement".
18 month plan. 100 free accounts. $15,000 in annual wireless minneapolis
monthly suscription vouchers for volunteers. CIVIC GARDEN Community Portals.
Sponsorship opportunities for neighborhood - based businesses to reach out to
potential customers cost effectively.
I would guess there would be private contractors applying for this workoutside
of usinternet...unless the provider will be doing the additional work.
The 100K would go to support the following projects, most are related to the development of the Civic Garden/Community Portal: -Design, develop and build out the Community Portal websites so that community based organizations could add pages when needed, and edit them using a content management system; -Train the 13+ NRP defined neighborhood organizations that currently have NO web presence, and help them launch pages by the end of 2008; -Investigate and test interactive applications that would allow 2-way interaction between city residents and City staff and elected officials; -Support the development of other portal applications that residents have recommended at the many public meetings and via the online survey concerning Portal content, (such as community calendars); The Digital Inclusion Fund is currently looking to fund programs and projects focused on technology literacy efforts, providing free Internet access in public spaces, and a number of other things. For information about that fund, contact the Minneapolis Foundation. The DIF community advisors are listed here: http://www.digitalaccess.org/dif_advisors.htm There are many (financial and other) benefits secured as part of this contract that require oversight and support from City staff, this request for funding from the City budget would address these needs as well.
There isn't any question that this is a GREAT program.
The question is the funding. Why is this being taken fromMTN..already suffering
from years of cuts. What other funding sources were investigated?
I would like to see an impact study from MTN...what services will MTN have to
cut to fund the portal initiative?
What will be the impact of those cuts on the communities being served by MTN? I
would guess many in these communities depend on TV communication as much as
they do onlaptops.
Has the city done a cost:benefit analysis to justify funding from the MTN
budget versus funding from other, larger budgets?
$100,000 (on top of a budget reduction of $50K) may not seem like much in a
large city budget...but for MTN it is a huge amount.
I want to thank Peter who first brought this to our attention with the City
Pages article.
best wishes,
cheryl luger
Nokomis east
Peter Fleck wrote:
> I just heard about a proposal of Mayor Rybak's to cut MTN funding by
> $100,000 and use that money to fund the wireless community portals. ...
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.
Public-access cable TV channels support narrowly focused,
one-way communications by a small group of people, while the
Internet enables rich, interactive, two-way communications between
every Minneapolis resident, elected official, and employee.
What role, if any, is left for public-access cable TV in the era
of ubiquitous Internet access?
What role can or should MTN, as an organization, have in the era
of ubiquitous Internet access? Is the mission of the organization
tightly tied to one particular medium (i.e., public-access TV),
or is its mission applicable to an alternative medium
(i.e., the Internet)? Can MTN adapt, or will it simply become
another casualty of the Internet?
Is it ironic that this discussion is occurring on the Internet,
rather than public-access TV?
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.
Taking money away from cable public access channels is central
decision making without regard to the public's actual needs. If the
commitment to Internet access was so thin that $100k was a make or
break figure in deployment of the service what for goodness sake was
the plan? Taking money from another public service surely wasn't a
decision made in 2005 or 2006, was it?
Laura
Southeast/Como
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
"Taking money away from cable public access channels is central decision making
without regard to the public's actual needs."
Who decides what the public needs? Is anyone actually asking for more
public-access programming? Is anyone actually asking for community-portal web
pages? Please keep in mind that I recognize a few are asking for each, but is
there sufficient demand to justify the cost of either, or are they provided
only to maintain a civic-minded image?
"the Internet enables rich, interactive, two-way communications between every
Minneapolis resident, elected official, and employee."
Enabling is a necessary but insufficient condition for the actual engagement
and interaction. It seems wise to consider what we get, not just what we offer.
"Can MTN adapt, or will it simply become another casualty of the Internet?"
It might be useful to separate content from means of transmission. MTN could
certainly offer the same content without dedicated cable bandwidth. Internet
and TV flows through the same pipes. Is this budget discussion about content,
i.e. Are we choosing between subsidizing the Lesbian Zombie Muslim TV Music
Hour and the Shoreline Park Co-op DFL Streetcar Homepage? I know, we shouldn't
have to choose...but there's only so much money.
Mark Fox
East Division (Audubon Park)
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"?
The appendix section is long and I don't know how to post file info. so if it doesn't go thru I will break it up. the quesion still IS, 'why was the MTN budget singled to take this hit?' At finance dept's community meetingthey were unable to answer why this choice was made. To be fair, they are not involved in this type of decision making and they answered all questions clearly, honestly and in plain language. Still have not received an impact study or a cost:benefit analysis. As I said in a previous post,about 4 years ago the city wanted MTN rolled into their Communications department. The new community engagement department would probably like MTN in their dept to keep an eye on them and be sure the city's pr mission is maintained..the city is very conscious of its image. Nothing wrong with that, we all are--it's how you go about it.The original consolidationeffort experienced resistance and was scrapped at that time. Doing a little more research, a number of city people took offense to the treatment given one of the council people.( Please note a number of council people have pleasant experiences on MTN ...both Johnson and Ostrow are being interviewed this month). This antipathy to MTN resurfaced at a much later date when council blogs were being discussed...the fear that blogs could get pretty personal..this MtN program was mentioned. (see Appendix 2..city pages article) With the controversy over NRP, would MTN's 'NRP in Action" be broadcast if the station was under the direction of the city? You may not like the programs, but the more independent 4th estates we have, the better oversight for our form of government.The consolidation of once competing media outlets and the 'super-localization' of news, makes it even more important that these small venues exist. Some of our best reporting is done by the pee-wees (including our neighborhood newspapers). Now going from the practical concerns tomore detail: Do forum readers know that this forum partnered with MTN when it started and still lists MTN as a 'partner' when it applies for grants? See Appendix 1 (one link has cute graphics) MTN is not obsolete and has shown an ability to compete. In '94 it started the River project...internet dialup and web host for non-profits. It isnot part of the digital divide...its goals include public access to both cable and wireless. Even if it were limited to cable..I don't see that going away soon. Like libraries (who the gurus told us would be obsolete with the web but who have gained clients...something must be working there..just complimentaryparallel and intersecting tracks)MTN is not out in the technology 'cold'. See appendix 3 MTN has targeted its market and tailored the technologies needed to serve them. It's a dual track and doesn't compete with the portals...Mtn augments them. It engages (classes, volunteers, etc) and it empowers those participating...that engagement spills over to other venues (MTN programs are found listed on other websites, their videos-- done by kids and adults--can also be seen on myspace (dancing with Jonah) Who's served in this engagement/empowerment (see appendix 5 for history and reason for public access to mass markets)? *culturally and politically 'marginalized' *those wanting programs done by people 'who look like me' *new immigrants (did you know there's alot of public health & serviceshows-- outreach by city depts) *seniors, disabled vets at MACV affordable housing campus *those seeking entertainment but for reasons of transit, mobility or cost don't get out much *us cultural snobs who sometimes find great musical entertainment (last night was an example of classical music) See appendix 4...and like the gods on olympus, we can pick and choose and hit thedeletebutton onwhat the mortals watch. I have sat thru alot of meetings in the past 4 years where some participants don't realize not everyone has a computer or laptop (and some don't want one). While we are becoming more wired, some of the conditions that keep people out of the digital world are not likely to disappear soon.It's not 'one way or the highway'. There is only so much money but the question is not the money, it is the priorities.Stadiums, $3M Convention center terrazzo floors, $50K websites promoting downtown holiday shopping, Great Street initiatives, City logo/branding, Target center expenses, Maryland apt goof with the parking ramps new buyers (we're subsidizing the gap),a resolution(soon to be introduced) permitting funding food/beverages when the city and boards get together,expensive lawsuits etc.,etc....are the priorities. Not funding engagement and empowerment tools like MTN (or the outsourced libraries). An educated citizenry in a constitutional republic has costs. I need to buy Revlon stock...I am running out of lipstick. I watch MTN occasionally, but until tonight, I didn't realize all they do. Council people need to be informed that this budget reduction is the wrong way to go when it comes to 'engagement'...they need to hear before they make their final budget decision. Portals and MTN do not need to compete against each other. It is a dual and intersecting path. And I can't help wondering if a little "payback" is involved here. Again, show me the reasons MTN was singled out...in atransparent and rigorous analysis. Best wishes, cheryl luger nokomis east *********** **Appendix '0': state statute: Minnesota State law required that a cable franchise contract exist between the city and the cable company and that the franchise support community television. Minneapolis took advantage of this and required that the cable company provide operating, capital equipment funds and channel space for public use. MTN mission statement (full statement at http://www.mtn.org) MTN Mission The Minneapolis Television Network (MTN) provides community access to television, and to communication and information networks. MTN strengthens community by encouraging creation of and access to programs and information using electronic technology. MTN supports freedom of expression for all. ****************** ** Appendix 1: the forum and Mtn: From "a wired agora" 1998 detailing how forum was started: MPLS-ISSUES is co-sponsored by Minnesota E-Democracy and the Minneapolis Telecommunications Network. MTN is the local public access cable entity and helps cement the notion of community media participation in interactive new media at the local level. The full charter, rules and a link to the web archive is available at http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls-issues/. full article and `pix of the innocent squirrel in carag... http://www.publicus.net/present/agora.html other weblinks(among many), including 2005 grant application: -democracy.org/mpls/2001.htm - 94k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this eDemocracy International - Electronic Democracy Forums To SUBSCRIBE, send an e-mail message to: <email obscured> In the text area, ... Special thanks to the Minneapolis Telecommunications Network for provision ...www.e-democracy.org/intl/forums/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
c lee wrote: > ... the quesion still IS, 'why was the MTN budget singled to take > this hit?' ... If the decision were up to me, I would argue that neighborhood Web portals and public-access cable TV have nearly identical missions (empowering communities and facilitating resident communication). The principle difference between the two projects is that they have chosen different strategies (i.e., media) to realize this common mission. And, in my view, neighborhood Web portals have adopted a strategy (i.e., the Internet) that appears far more likely to be successful than the strategy adopted by MTN (i.e., public-access cable TV). Given two projects with essentially the same mission, is it any surprise that the Mayor has suggested that funds be shifted to the project that is more likely to be successful? > Still have not received an impact study or a cost:benefit analysis. In a large sense, numerous volunteers have already made the case for neighborhood Web portals, as well as for ubiquitous Internet access. See, for example: http://metrostability.org/UserFiles/File/Wireless-CBA-Recommendations.pdf http://www.digitalaccess.org/documents/MDITF%20complete.pdf If there is a similar summary of the benefits of public-access cable TV, I would love to see it. And, I would really love to see a comparison of the benefits of public-access cable TV and the benefits of ubiquitous Internet access (which really seems to be the question on the table). Having said that, I don't think that MTN, as an organization, necessarily needs to wither away (although I assume that the utility of public-access cable TV will continue to drop). If MTN sees its mission as "empowering communities and facilitating resident communication" (a phrase I stole from the public-access TV Wiki page), then it may be able to adapt to the Internet age. MTN might even offer to use the $100,000 in question to develop neighborhood Web portals. But, if MTN views its mission as ensuring that public-access cable TV channels and an expensive TV production studio are fully utilized, then it may have a hard time surviving. > MTN is not obsolete and has shown an ability to compete. I don't know whether MTN is obsolete. I do believe, however, that public-access cable TV is either obsolete or soon will be. To the extent that MTN is unable to move beyond public-access cable TV, it seems destined to become obsolete as well. As an outside observer, I don't see any signs that MTN is even trying to compete. > In '94 it started the River project...internet dialup and web > host for non-profits. That was at roughly the time that the Web browser was invented. What is MTN doing with the Internet _today_? What has MTN done with the Internet this century? What should MTN do with the Internet?
On Nov 10, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
>
> 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).
This very discussion is store and read, store and send, not interactive.
> It enables real-time,
> interactive, text-based messaging, both one-to-one and
> many-to-many.
This is true. Still as a percentage of the total Internet, it is
small, small, small.
> 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.
All for those who can afford the price. A small number of people
overall.
> Obviously, I think that public-access TV is pretty close to
> irrelevant.
Not really a malleable position. More of a belief. I don't doubt the
merger of formats is coming, along with different kinds of offerings
for the various segments of the public. But that is not what we are
talking about here. What we have is government deciding that public
access is less important than its choice of wifi.
Laura
Southeast/Como
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
Hi, I am currently the Executive Director at MTN and my thoughts are, we are
friends-portals and MTN, natural allies. Many of us have worked across causes
over the years. High quality motion media is crucial to the quality of the
work done by citizen journalists, regardless of platform. MTN has the media
making tools, television studios and a mobile production van. Comcast has been
our corporate partner. By regulatory law obligated to provide for 'community
voices'. This 'community media' partnership has worked. US Internet must
provide all it has promised. We have to hold our corporate partners
responsible. We need the portals project, we need public access, we need
better systems of citizen feed back. We can not assume that folks have access
to tools, or how to use the tools. We are having this discussion on MTN
channels 16 and 17. Lots and lots of discussion. Check out our WEB site
MTN.org.
Peace,
Pam Colby
Powderhorn Park
MTN Executive Director
Great discussion. Everyone is raising good points. FYI: I am serving on the Digital Inclusion Fund Advisory Committee (DIFAC). This is the group that, along with the Minneapolis Foundation, is handling the money from USIW negotiated with the Community Benefits Agreement. We have $200K right now and we are going over proposals. I mention this because DIFAC has been mentioned as the group that will monitor portal content in the long run. (We aren't doing it yet.) Native language content has been a selling point of the community portal system. The RFP from DIFAC also highlights that. MTN has content in a variety of languages that would be almost web ready. (Video prep for the web is not difficult.) The Community Portal system is still coming. The wireless network is still coming. Whether it will eclipse public access cable in targeted groups (i.e. groups mentioned around digital inclusion) is still to be seen. MTN is serving a need. I spoke with an employee for MTN today, John Akre, and he said Somali call-in shows on weekday afternoons see a constantly ringing phone. He also mentioned that via anecdotal evidence, people will gather to watch shows. So a single point of cable access might serve a much larger group. The Internet just doesn't lend itself to that yet. Some data from 2004 surveys and evaluation is available at their site. http://www.mtn.org/Video/about/franchise.html Given all this, it sure looks to me like partnership and collaboration are the way to go. MTN is a ready source of foreign language content. They have teachers to provide training in producing video. After the portals are established, maybe one community media group encompassing both MTN and the Community Portal Services could be established. Just a thought. The way I see it, MTN is doing much of what the portals will do eventually. But I think we are at least a year away from a vibrant online portal community.
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.
On Nov 12, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Catherine Settanni wrote:
>
>
> 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).
>
Immigrants and refugees in large numbers go to Mpls public libraries
for free access to the Internet. There may be significant coffee shop
usage too but I don't have any numbers for that venue.
No doubt the children of the immigrants and refugees will make use of
wifi.
>
> 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.
>
And large numbers of the public in Mpls (and St. Paul) - representing
"a diversity of disenfranchised communities" supported public access
when cable first came to the cities.
Prior to that we (the disenfranchised communities) relied on
commercial television's obligation to provide public access time -
although it was quite limited. There were the Sunday programs
Madagimo and Harambee and I believe there was a Latino program but I
can't remember the time it aired.
Compare this with the public access programming of today and we see
the value of putting access into the contracts with the cable companies.
Laura
Southeast/Como
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
"No doubt the children of the immigrants and refugees will make use of wifi."
The next generation will likely use something not yet widely known. In the
interim half-generation, if we can use the rest of the world as an indicator,
people will move more toward mobile-phone-based systems (text/video messaging).
The City Wi-Fi is yesterday's technology for tomorrow.
Mark Fox
Connected by every means except Interstate (Audubon Park)
> 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.
As a supporter of MTN (and having volunteered many hours of my time there in the past), I'm not saying in any way that the Portal project is more important than anything else...I'm simply trying to help readers of this forum understand the Portal/Civic Garden project a bit more. There continues to be a lot of misinformation about anything related to the Wireless project, and if we're going to have a discussion about the value of the Portal project, we need to at least understand what that project is. I think many of us understand the value of community based media in general, but the fact that the Portal/Civic Garden will provide a free level of broadband Internet access throughout the city seems to be missing in this discussion. Since community based media has moved online to a great degree, it seems timely to develop a platform to support that...an example from the Somali community would be http://www.hiiraan.com/, which has a huge online audience, here and abroad. I agree with Pam Colby that <<We need the portals project, we need public access, we need better systems of citizen feed back.>> It's not an either/or conversation...
Presuming that this post was more that merely rhetorical or
contrarian, additional comments about the capabilities and
benefits of the Internet, compared to those of public-access
cable TV, may be warranted.
Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
>> 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).
>
> This very discussion is store and read, store and send, not interactive.
This is a two-way discussion, something that is very difficult
(if not close to impossible) to do at all with public-access
cable TV (particularly beyond live, dial-in shows).
What exactly is your point? Are you trying to somehow give the
impression that public-access cable TV supports anything close
to the richness of communication styles that the Internet does?
That public-access cable TV provides anything close to the
access to information that the Internet does?
>> It enables real-time,
>> interactive, text-based messaging, both one-to-one and
>> many-to-many.
>
> This is true. Still as a percentage of the total Internet, it is
> small, small, small.
It depends on your age. Certain age groups are likely to configure
their computers to have instant messaging software running whenever
their machine is on. For these people, interactive, text-based
messaging is available all of the time; and many of them use it
pretty much all the time. Other age groups generally can't
comprehend why anyone would want to do this.
But, again, what is your point? This is a style of interaction
(which is heavily used by some age groups) that simply isn't
supported by public-access cable TV.
>> 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.
>
> All for those who can afford the price. A small number of people
> overall.
I spent about $20 for a headset so that I could use Skype [which
I downloaded for free] to talk [for free] to a friend who was
traveling in Europe and Africa.
I pay less per month for my voice-over-IP telephone service than
I do for either for cellular service or cable TV service.
I believe that residential voice-over-IP telephone service costs
about as much as landline service.
Free instant messaging software and service is available for
free. Most of the IM services I use are free.
Given that many of these services are free, cost wouldn't seem
to be an issue.
>> Obviously, I think that public-access TV is pretty close to
>> irrelevant.
>
> Not really a malleable position. More of a belief.
Yes, I believe that compared to the Internet, public-access
cable TV is an extremely limited medium. I think that this
is a readily defensible position. In fact, I suspect that it
is something that you largely agree with, in practice,
if not in words. Perhaps you could describe your use of
the Internet and your use of public-access cable TV over the
last month. E-mail? A home page? In support of your business?
Access to a tremendous variety of information on demand?
A search engine? How long does it take to notice that your
Internet connection is down? How long does it take to notice that
your public-access cable TV channels aren't working?
> I don't doubt the
> merger of formats is coming, along with different kinds of offerings
> for the various segments of the public. But that is not what we are
> talking about here. What we have is government deciding that public
> access is less important than its choice of wifi.
Are you philosophically opposed to the mayor proposing a budget,
or do simply not like the contents of his proposed budget?
Thank you, Ms Settanni, for bringing us back to the central issue. You are
right...it is not an 'either/or' discussion.
These 2 venues compliment each other to minimize service gaps; they work
together because each provides different, but overlapping, mechanisms to reach
different target markets...or TM's not limited to one venue. Both aim to
educate and serve our form of government and the needs of its citizens. They
add to engagement and empowerment..terms used a bit loosely these days. I
appreciate Mark's commentssuggesting that when this systemgoes on line, it will
be outdated...all we can do is try to minimize the gaps and increase the
connection points. This is where both the Civic Garden and MTN (& others) can
work together.
But not if MTN ceases to exist.
I read both your report and the one in which Mr. Salo was a task force member.
As I said early on in this discussion, portal plan looks great. Changing the
controversial 'Walled garden' (large media term used when lobbyingFCC, Capitol
and state legislatures)to the 'Civic garden' looks better. Both above-mentioned
reports conducted alot of surveys (+140 in one case) but was the question asked
if Civic garden should replace pubic access or share with public access? Was
this question brought up at the city-wide forums or did participants assume
supporting portals would not impact other venues such as MTN?
The problem is it could become an "EITHER / OR" given the funding source. MTN
cannot take a $100K budget hit without affecting service (and, maybe as City
pages said, its existence). Reading the Mayor's proposed 2008 budget, this
money could easily come from other non-safety/non-basic service areas... Even
from within the communication department's budget which is in pretty good
shape. The budget can be found by going to the city web site, scrolling down to
city depts and linking to city coordinator's office and then to finance
dept.The city's 'search' option brings up alot of old, mixed document
references (by %).
Coming late to this subject, I researched telecommunications and public access
stations. There is a well-funded and intensecampaign by both cable providers
(whose franchise fees pay alot of PA) and large telecommunications co's
(wanting a piece of the internet mkt) to eliminate (or curtail) PA's....
reducing costs and freeing-up the pa's channels for commercial use. Alot of
info on REDLINING (especially in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Ill...and other
states).These firms could not get the US Capitol to loosen public access
requirements so they focused their efforts on a state-by-state basis and within
the FCC.
In another move, they are lobbying to change the per capita fee structure and
allow companies to change established municipal contracts if the agreement
results ina financial hardship. Negotiating these contracts on a state- wide
basis cuts out city input/franchise fees/benefit agreements and allows
redlining of underserved areas.No wonder people may be nervous about
Conglomerates bearing Gifts.
When I mentioned that MTN was part of the early Riverproject, I should have
clarified that, at the time, they demonstrated innovation....it was not meant
to indicate they had done nothing since..sorry.
Some literature uses the term "limited time access". What does this mean?
As you know PA's don't decide content and should (value judgment) offer this
service complementing those portals that may decide content. Examples were
listed as Appendix in previous post. As mentioned in the city's plan, business
will be encouraged to participate and advertise. Coming from the private sector
Aaron Landry posted his opinions about the MTN/portal issue at his blog. http://s4xton.com/1628/mtn-comcast-usi-wireless-and-minneapolis/
This is a great discussion. Working in community media and community
technology, it's great to see people engaged on these issues.
A couple of ideas:
-If cable television is so 20th Century, why do we have 500 channels pumping
stuff at 85,000 homes in Minneapolis? Radio is definitely very 1920s. Why
would any non-flapper listen to it? Let's talk to ESPN about giving up all
those cable channels. Maybe we can convince them it's obsolete. Any
volunteers?
Commercial media uses broadcast, cable, satellite, mobile phone AND internet to
reach audiences and make meaning. Why can't community groups devoted to
bettering civic life? I don't understand why we have to choose one mode or
another. Most media users use several, not one. The limitations, here, are
access to capital and access to imagination.
-Aside from broad assertions listed here, has anyone at any recent time done an
unbiased study to determine the use and worth of cable access channels in
Minneapolis? What are the facts? Commercial channels pay money for this
intelligence to sell ads...that's why we have ratings. Non-commercial channels
don't (or in some cases are prohibited from getting the information!). My
organization commissions studies in Saint Paul to determine these things. 60%
of cable households watch our five channels. There is a public audience for
these channels, at least in Saint Paul. Maybe we're just old-fashioned ;)
-Can community groups come together to increase the civic knowledge of people
in Minneapolis through community networks AND community media? THAT in my mind
should be the mission of community media, including public access
organizations, and it's the work on many civic internet projects.
That the portal project and MTN have been pitted against each other seems
short-sighted - regardless of the intent. They are BOTH needed to help the
citizens of Minneapolis.
Mike Wassenaar
St Paul Neighborhood Network
My post on the situation. http://urltea.com/23lc I've aggregated a bunch of the links.
Sorry for joining the discussion late. I'd like to see/help ensure that the "civic garden" includes local citizen produced community oriented content. I happened to chat offline with Catherine the other week about ensuring that this forum was included in the civic garden as soon as possible. She indicated the need for an advisory committee of sorts that would set the criteria for user generated content in the garden - essentially a political buffer between city officials who might fear liability 1or real openness. In addition to the Minneapolis Issues Forum, I'd also like to see in the garden: 1. MTN/City Meetings On-Demand 2. Neighborhood Forums (We are rolling these out and started with Seward) - http://e-democracy.org/nf - We also some grant funding to help a couple predominantly immigrant/low income/communities of color get started: http://blog.e-democracy.org/posts/112 3. Minneapolis Wiki - Neighborhood Wiki - http://pages.e-democracy.org/Minneapolis - http://pages.e-democracy.org/Minneapolis_neighborhoods 4. Community Survey Platform - This should be a community utility that involves public institutions but isn't limited to city use. We've outlined this idea in a Knight News Challenge proposal - http://blog.e-democracy.org/posts/111 . Here is some text: Community Survey Platform Description: The problem: Online polls are a joke. Online comments reflect the extremes and the most vocal. Telephone surveys are expensive, miss huge swatches of the population, and rarely focus locally. The solution? We will not know until we try. We propose a pilot online community survey platform designed to engage ten percent of households in Minneapolis and St. Paul on an ongoing basis. Monthly question sets will come from both local institutions like the neighborhood newspapers, non-profit and community groups and local government as well as through a deliberative selection and "balanced" drafting effort among interested participants. The anonymized results will be weighed based on demographic data and shared "as is" for all to see. This model is used for government only online surveys in Issy France and we want to democratize the model and compare the results with a set of alternative and traditionally scientific public opinion polls. Who knows, perhaps we will discover and legitimate and low cost mechanism to survey local citizens about important issues in their community to improve decision-making and democratic accountability. Users: Getting beyond those who already show up will be essential for this survey platform to work in a meaningful way. With aggressive outreach - even some door to door in less represented areas, we'll engage more people in local public affairs than any process outside of occasional voting. Cheers, Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org
Peter Fleck wrote: > My post on the situation. > > http://urltea.com/23lc In his blog, Peter writes: You can certainly argue that the Internet and web can replace much of the usefulness of public access cable RSN (real soon now). But that "now" isn't here yet and it looks to me that MTN is still serving a community need. ... There is an audience for public-access cable TV in general, and for the work being produced or facilitated by MTN in particular. But, in a rapidly changing world of finite resources, the question really is: How should the City of Minneapolis balance its public-access investments in the Internet with its investments in cable TV. Peter, your language doesn't appear to fully appreciate the volume of local content by and for under-served communities available _today_ on the Internet. This includes native-language content. For example, Google finds: o 1,710,000 Web pages when I search for "Somali Minneapolis" o 1,430,000 Web pages when I search for "Af Soomaali" (the Somali language) In fact, the Hennepin County Library is referenced on the first page of the Google "Af Soomaali" results. Google thinks that the Hennepin County Library has about 332 "Af Soomaali" pages, most of which appear to be written in Af Soomaali. Google finds 142 pages that contain "Af Soomaali" at the Minneapolis Public Library. Beyond that, there is a Somali-language section of the Wikipedia. And, from another site: "136 members are now chatting live in SomaliNet Chat Rooms". All available today. In terms of the volume and diversity of native-language content and local content for pretty much every community you can think of, the Internet beats public-access cable TV hands down, every time, today. And this is before you consider the services that are available over the Internet that simply have no equivalent on public-access cable TV. I trust that I don't need to remind you what the Internet can provide that public-access cable TV can't. This doesn't answer the question of how the City should balance its investments in the Internet and cable TV. But, it _might_ provide some insight into the Mayor's thinking when he proposed to shift investment from cable TV to the Internet.
Tim, you left out my main argument about the MTN/portal issue. It's
pretty simple. To quote myself:
Stakeholders in this issue have not been brought to the table for an
in-depth discussion of options and how to pay for them.
Peter Fleck wrote: > Tim, you left out my main argument about the MTN/portal issue. It's > pretty simple. To quote myself: > > Stakeholders in this issue have not been brought to the table for an > in-depth discussion of options and how to pay for them. To the contrary, the stakeholders _have_ spoken, loudly, clearly, and repeatedly. They said: Access to the Internet is required to fully participate in today's society -- every household in Minneapolis should have and should be able to effectively use broadband Internet access. To better understand why these stakeholders feel so strongly about the importance of access to the Internet, I recommend the UofM's Institute on Race and Poverty's report "Digital Justice: Progress towards Digital Inclusion in Minnesota". "The report makes the connection between access to the Internet and access to life opportunities such as living-wage jobs." http://www.irpumn.org/website/projects/index.php?strWebAction=project_detail&intProjectID=12 The Digital Inclusion Coalition, "an ad hoc organization of concerned community members", met for eight months and prepared recommendations for ensuring that all Minneapolis households had and could effectively use broadband Internet access. The Coalition was composed largely of representatives of local nonprofit organizations (the presence of a few geeks such as you and me notwithstanding); review the list of stakeholders on pages 17 and 18 of the Coalition's report: http://metrostability.org/UserFiles/File/Wireless-CBA-Recommendations.pdf The Coalition recommended the creation of a Digital Inclusion fund, funded by a 7% fee on the revenues of the Wireless Minneapolis vendor. The Digital Inclusion Task Force, a even more impressive list of stakeholder representatives, made similar recommendations. For a list of the stakeholders represented, see pages 24-27 of the Task Force's report: http://www.digitalaccess.org/documents/MDITF%20complete.pdf Mayors are likely to pay attention when they hear a consistent message from such a broad range of stakeholders. But, in an era of limited resources, that left the Mayor searching for a source of funds to support this important cause. He proposed that funds be transferred to digital inclusion efforts from public-access cable TV and MTN (which seem to be perceived as pretty much one and the same). Public-access cable TV and MTN appear to have several problems. First, public-access cable TV seems to be unable to rally the sort of support that bridging the digital divide does. Second, rightly or wrongly, the mission of MTN appears to be perceived as public-access cable TV. And third, the stakeholders that would seem most likely to support public-access cable TV seem to be focused on the Internet. No, the stakeholders didn't tell the mayor to transfer funds from public-access cable TV to efforts to bridge the digital divide. Rather, they said that digital inclusion efforts are very important to the future of Minneapolis, while remaining silent on the importance of public-access cable TV.
Steven Clift's post suggests that a community advisory board (for the Portal
website) might create
<<essentially a political buffer between city officials who might fear
liability
1or real openness.>>
While there may certainly be liability issues to consider (since the City is
currently sponsoring the Portal project), City staff and elected officials I
have met with are more interested in supporting the development of a true
community advisory process that they are in "buffering" opinion.
IMHO--Minneapolis needs an ongoing Digital Inclusion community advisory board
of some kind to develop acceptable use guidelines and help set community
standards related to Portal content. In addition, oversight is needed to insure
fair and open access to the Portal in terms of allowing new pages or sites on
the Portal pages.
Any media project or organization that acts as a content aggregator should have
this kind of oversight, not only to oversee content per se, but to ensure equal
access to the tools and training needed to utilize this "public benefit". This
is why there is a budget request pending-- to facilitate the necessary
community engagement effort as well as support the technology and training
needed to ensure community representation.
This advisory board/council/or commission is also needed to ensure overall CBA
compliance with USIW; the portal is just one of a dozen community benefits
secured as part of the contract, there is of course the Digital Inclusion Fund,
use of a community server, service vouchers for volunteers, and 100 free
accounts for Non Profits.
The sooner we have such a board in place, the sooner we'll be able to demo
applications on the Portal such as the Community Survey Platform Steven is
promoting, and implement a fair and authentic process so residents and
organizations can create and publish community (user) generated content on the
Portal.
> Peter Fleck wrote:
> > Stakeholders in this issue have not been brought to the table for an
> > in-depth discussion of options and how to pay for them.
Tim, I'm really onboard with you about the importance of the Internet
for full participation in society today.
But the issue of funding was never discussed at any table among
stakeholders. I don't agree that "remaining silent on the importance
of public-access cable TV" counts as an endorsement to use MTN money
for funding Internet activities. If silence on an issue is the
endorsement, I would submit that we never discussed the importance of
designing a new logo for the City so let's use that money instead.
Like you said, we were focused on the Internet people at that table.
If using MTN money had come up, I have no idea if the idea would have
gained full support. I certainly would want to talk to the MTN
stakeholders before I made a decision. The MTN-cable-public access
people had no chairs at our table for the discussion.
I'm listing the problems you see with the cable issue and commenting inline.
> First, public-access cable TV seems to be
> unable to rally the sort of support that bridging the
> digital divide does.
Why it's not getting support is really open to speculation. Some
possible reasons:
1. Internet and digital divide are sexier and get more media coverage.
2. The City and Comcast do a poor job in promoting MTN.
3. MTN users are busy making content and not organizing for political clout.
> Second, rightly or wrongly, the
> mission of MTN appears to be perceived as public-access
> cable TV.
The mission states that they provide "community access to television,
and to communication and information networks." But I get that
perception might be different. I see that as a media/PR/marketing
problem that's made more difficult by the fact the Internet is sexier.
> And third, the stakeholders that would seem
> most likely to support public-access cable TV seem to be
> focused on the Internet.
So if I'm focused on the Internet I don't support public-access cable
TV? I can't support both as citizen media outlets?
Peter
Seward Neighborhood
Good morning, I hope everyone is having a good holiday. I just want to add that many of the MTN stakeholders did speak out at a recent forum that was televised live on MTN. Here is the link to our newsletter that covers what some of the folks said: http://www.mtn.org/Video/news/newsletter.html We are not a silent crowd. We are large and noisy and busy making video programming that is for cable in Minneapolis AND in recent years has developed a strong WEB presence. Many of our producers have audiences all over the world and they reach them through the Internet. For example check out this site; http://somalitv.org/ MTN has a long history of community engagement. For example we were the ISP that first hosted this list. Thanks much, Pam Colby Executive Director MTN Powderhorn Park