Wireless Community

Icon

MoveOn Campaign to save the Internet

MoveOn has just launched a campaign to save the Internet. Read on:

*Google, Amazon, MoveOn. All these entities are fighting back as Congress tries to pass a law giving a few corporations the power to end the free and open Internet as we know it.*

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn’s online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet.

Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet’s First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don’t work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality1 — and you can do your part today.

*The free and open Internet is under seige — can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality?*

*”Tell Congress to preserve the free and open Internet today.”:1*

P.S. *If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected?*
* *Advocacy groups like MoveOn — Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay “protection money” for their websites and online features to work correctly.
* *Nonprofits* — A charity’s website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can’t pay dominant Internet providers for access to “the fast lane” of Internet service.
* *Google users* — Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
* *Innovators with the “next big idea”* — Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the “slow lane” with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
* *Ipod listeners* — A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
* *Online purchasers* — Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices — distorting your choice as a consumer.
* *Small businesses and tele-commuters* — When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won’t be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
* *Parents and retirees* — Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
* *Bloggers* — Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips — silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

[1]http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631-h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFew&t=4

Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy

Interactive Wireless Sculpture

Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, is introducing a “large scale sculpture”:1 that will “visualize people’s use of the University’s wireless network”:2. Artists Jesse Allison, John Fillwalk and Keith Kothman created the sculpture.

bq. “Part of what we hope to accomplish with the sculpture is to help people see a wireless network as a physical thing,” Fillwalk said. “When people think of this form of technology, it usually doesn’t bring to mind something that is tangible.”

bq. Fillwalk came up with the sculpture’s concept with help from music technology professors Keith Kothman and Jessie Allison. Creating the piece of public art has taken months and required the assistance of University Computing Services, Kothman said. The project is sponsored by the Center for Media Design.

Visualizing network traffic through physical, interactive sculptures has been around since computer networks came into common use. Pioneering work by Natalie Jeremijenko at Xerox Parc in 1995, “Live Wire”:4 “is an 8 foot piece of plastic spaghetti that hangs from a small electric motor mounted in the ceiling. The motor is electrically connected to a nearby Ethernet cable, so that each bit of information that goes past causes a tiny twitch of the motor. A very busy network causes a madly whirling string with a characteristic noise; a quiet network causes only a small twitch every few seconds.”

The sculpture is intended to celebrate Ball State University’s ranking by Intel as the nation’s most wireless campus. Most of the network’s equipment was provided by Cisco, which provides all of the live data that feeds the artwork. “A live camera and processed video feed”:3 is available for viewing remotely.

[1]http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604150323
[2]http://www.bsu.edu/web/jfillwalk/wireless/
[3]http://dvisweb1.bsu.edu/media/journalism/johnfillwalk/live.asx
[4]http://www.ubiq.com/weiser/calmtech/calmtech.htm

Filed under: Art, Event, News

Words of Wisdom from Harold Feld

A couple of weekends ago, I was at the “National Summit for Community Wireless Networks”:1, Sascha Meinrath’s wonderful conference (the second one, in fact) where I met and worked with Community Wireless organizers from around the country (and around the world, too). The event was inspiring. There are so many ways that people are using wireless technologies to help each other and to connect their local communities.

One of the most important aspects of the work we do is that, unlike traditional broadband, CWNs engage local community members and connect people to each other — as opposed to connecting individuals to commerce and media consumption. There is richness and diversity to the ways that people solve local problems and create new media and avenues for its interaction. CWNs inspire people — not just technologists, but moms and dads, students and teachers, grandparents and grandchildren alike — to discover each other.

I’ve always said that Community Wireless Networks are about *community* first and technology second. This years Summit drove home that point.

Here are some photos from the event:

More Flickr photos tagged with NS4CWN

Harold Feld “wrote up his closing remarks from the event”:3, and I would suggest everyone read them to get a sense for the importance of the work we do:

bq. Because our struggle to make a better world must be a universal struggle. One that changes and betters the lives of everyone, not just the techie elite or the chosen few believers. If there is one failing of the “open source” movement that has crippled it more than anything, it is the failure to understand that real movements help everyone. As long as open source coders see themselves as separate from everyone else, because they will always be able to get around the legal and regulatory restrictions and the rest of the world that’s too stupid to figure it out can go hang, they will remain marginal. Because the vast majority of people cannot figure this out, and therefore do not see why they should care.

bq. We must always remember that wireless is a tool, not a goal in itself. What we do has value because it changes peoples lives for the better. Wireless doesn’t create jobs or educational opportunities on its own. It gives people a new way to get information, to create new kinds of speech or applications, and share these applications with others. We can’t just “unwire” neighborhoods or throw up nodes or write code. We need to reach out to the communities around us, show them what they can do, give them what they need, then let go when they take it in completely different directions.

[1]http://www.cuwireless.net/summit/
[3]http://www.wetmachine.com/item/481

Filed under: Community Wireless, Event, NS4CWN

Vlog Interview: Santa Barbara Forum on Digital Transitions

I was invited to an interesting conference in Santa Barbara this past weekend called the “Santa Barbara Forum on Digital Transitions”:1, held at UCSB. The conference had a number of engaging attendees (I even got to catch up with some people I haven’t seen since grad school, like “danah boyd”:2 and “Marc Smith”:3). I was also interviewed by Jay Dedman for the vlog he was compiling for the conference:

http://33whitehall.video.blip.tv/uploadedFiles/Jaydedman-DanaSpiegel893.mov

[1]http://www.transitions.cits.ucsb.edu/
[2]http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/
[3]http://research.microsoft.com/~masmith/

Filed under: Event, Interview

NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY

I was recently interviewed for an article in the New York Press titled “NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY – Thanks to the big telcos, we lag in installing a wifi overlay”:1. The article talks about how, with the exception of NYCwireless’ parks hotspots, NYC seems to be lagging behind in the broad deployments of Wi-Fi networks that have been taken up by other major (and lots of smaller) cities across the country.

bq. New York City lags far behind all of these municipalities. “Politicians [here] don’t know the difference between a server and a waiter,” said Andrew Rasiej, who ran for public advocate last year on a platform of providing municipal wireless broadband. “This is a city that made most of its money in the Industrial Age, and the people who control most of its power structures are Baby Boomers who don’t know much about technology.”

bq. The city inched closer to municipal wireless broadband last December when the City Council passed a bill creating a special taskforce to advise Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on technological options for “unwiring” New York, but this has stalled in the new session. Impatient activist groups have taken matters into their own hands.

bq. NYCwireless has installed wireless networks in Bryant Park, Union Square Park, Tompkins Square Park, Bowling Green Park, City Hall Park, and South Street Seaport. The group also maintains a database for users to identify neighborhood “hotspots.” And in keeping with the original, co-operative sentiments of Jones’ activity, the group provides open-source software, free of charge, to any apartment building or block that wants to build its own “mesh” wireless network.

bq. For around $5,000, a tech-savvy apartment resident can attach a “router” to a physical Internet connection in the building, and plug in two or three access points at electrical points on each floor of a typical six-storey building, according to NYCwireless Executive Director Dana Spiegel. These access points transmit wireless signals to residents on each floor, creating a “mesh”: a network that has no identifiable center—or owner—because each computer added creates more paths of connection.

bq. Organizations like NYCwireless can afford to give away their creations—often enhanced versions of other groups’ work across the country—because they’ve entirely bypassed the hefty research and development investment costs of the major telecommunications companies. “It’s not this black box, über-technology that requires zillions of dollars to do,” said Sascha Meinrath, project director of the Champaign-Urbana [Illinois] Community Wireless Network, whose software was developed by part-time volunteers sitting around drinking coffee and testing ideas.

bq. To many, the municipal wireless movement challenges the very concept of ownership: making a traditionally privately held utility available to everyone for next to nothing. Spiegel said communal networks brought people together. Discussing the recent New York Times feature, “Hey neighbor, stop piggy-backing on my wireless,” Spiegel said, “That’s completely wrong. It should be, ‘Hey neighbor, it’s great to finally meet you.’”

One of the corrections that needs to be made about the cost of building a wireless apartment building is that it should cost around $5,000 to light up the *entire* building, not just a single apartment. This price is based on a few assumptions about the size and construction of a building, but is well in line with some of the projects on which we’ve worked.

bq. Unsurprisingly, the giant telephone companies have made no secret of their hostility to the new technology. They are currently lobbying intensely at a federal level and in 15 states to pass laws banning municipalities from providing free wireless broadband, citing anti-monopoly concerns. Several traditional companies, including New York City’s main Internet providers Verizon and Time Warner Cable, impose non-sharing policies on users.

bq. Spiegel pointed out that there was no law against sharing an Internet connection. NYCwireless recommends ISPs that do not restrict use in this way, and instructs users how to set up security software to prevent harm to computers on a network.

bq. Groups like NYCwireless see wireless broadband as bridging socio-economic divides as well as bringing smaller communities together. While Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum has openly dismissed Internet access as a priority for low-income communities, NYCwireless secretary Laura Forlano describes a home broadband connection as helping users to find jobs and retail bargains. “Everyone knows public libraries are crowded and can only offer limited time online,” she said. “If you’re a single mother, you may only be able to go online at midnight.”

[1]http://www.nypress.com/19/14/news&columns/feature.cfm

Filed under: Community Wireless, Interview, New York City, News, NYCwireless, Policy

Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.