International Summit for Community Wireless Networks 2008
May 28 - 30, 2008
Notes on the Community Wireless Summit
Posted June 4th, 2008 by Anonymous
The summit was inspiring. I was impressed by the knowledge and enthusiasm of the people there; it was certainly an international crowd, and a number of people from Canada including Allison Powell, Hanna Cho, Gabe Sawhney. There were people from various European community wireless projects, from OneCommunity and OneCleveland, Christopher Mitchell, Harold Feld, The Ethos Group, the New American Foundation.
Since I was not at any of the previous three summits it is hard to say that is different/similar in terms of where the field is and where it is going. There was certainly a focus on wireless as a technology - but also talk of broadband in other forums. There was a sense that these are the people and projects left after the bubble of muni-wifi - people who have had an alternative perspective all along, and whose ideas may now have more of a chance of being heard after the crash of Civitium, Earthlink, etc..
Harold Feld gave an inspiring speech to finish up the summit. From what he said, there was a sense that in the past 4 years the Community Wireless movement has come a long way -coming from the grassroots into the policy sector, and that it is at a point of maturity where it may begin to really make a difference, and to really cohere as a movement. He argued "We are the right people (a very interesting group of people, coming from many perspectives, each with a commitment to doing things in the best way for the public or communities), at the right time (an important moment is opening up politically where many people are starting to see that the Washington solution of global capitalism is not what it promised to be, people are interested in alternatives), in the right place (we are everywhere! in many countries, fields, etc.)." And, he spoke about three ways/issues of going forward:
-We should introduce ourselves to international groups and at summits on diverse topics (health, economy, food, human rights, etc.) that the work we are doing in communications and technology would be useful for creating a wider net of connections.
-We should ask, "what are the things that are holding us back from doing the things we want to do?" (For example, "we need more open spectrum") And, figure out how to address these issues.
-We should put our solutions forward, and engage in partnerships, but we also need to be careful of co-option, something which can happen very subtly. This is not to say that, for example, we should refuse outright a donation of something like a Motorola mesh network, but that we should approach companies and other partners from the position of equals and with full understanding on both our parts of what a partnership would look like. e.g. engaging Motorola in a discussion about the reservations we might have about this donation, and ways that we can work together to address this.
Other interesting topics of conversation included:
-Talk about early U.S. history as it was characterized by a free press: this as something to be inspired by, and the relationship of the FCC to this history and to the current state of communications in the US. Ironically, ideas about communications "freedom" can be used both ways. For example, now there is a discourse focused on letting the market rule (aka letting the incumbents dominate) in the name of freedom. The FCC has played an interesting and at times disappointing role in the consolidation of media and the loss of media competition.
The FCC tends to direct its attention towards big companies – and with some good reason, as they can be strongly affected by FCC rulings and - the fact is - that these are currently the entities that are deploying much of U.S. broadband service. What is the current reality of U.S. communications in relation to our history of media freedom as a political tool? How can we draw on this powerful history? What should the role of the FCC be? The role of others?
-The intersection of the open source, human rights, community development, policy communities and issues.These various groups can help each other in their work. Our work needs to happen in two simultaneous steps:
1) What do we do now on the ground?
2) What do we need to change? How do we do it?
Common issues/challenges include:
*The regulatory environment has a huge effect on mobile device types > more openness would change this field and marketplace hugely. For example, there is a (non-technical) REASON why little Wal-Mart cell phones are so cheap and blackberries so expensive.
*The important of showing the real impact of this regulation > its underbelly. Showing in lurid detail why things are the way they are and why we should care. Showing how things actually work, not the official story.
*Data collection to demonstrate the bias in the current regulatory scheme (race, class, device, etc. divides). Role of open source community, potentially developing open source devices for communities.
*The US human rights network may be interested in funding some sort of research along these lines. They recently wrote a report on discrimination on the US.
-The relationship between "techie" groups (Ile Sans Fil, etc.) and community development groups (OneCommunity, etc.) in community wireless. Despite a focus on similar issues and technologies, where are the mis-communications, dis-connections, mis-designs between these two groups? How do they overlap? How are they different? Who are people/organizations who might play a bridging role between the two? How could they benefit each other?
-Amelia Bryne Potter
Since I was not at any of the previous three summits it is hard to say that is different/similar in terms of where the field is and where it is going. There was certainly a focus on wireless as a technology - but also talk of broadband in other forums. There was a sense that these are the people and projects left after the bubble of muni-wifi - people who have had an alternative perspective all along, and whose ideas may now have more of a chance of being heard after the crash of Civitium, Earthlink, etc..
Harold Feld gave an inspiring speech to finish up the summit. From what he said, there was a sense that in the past 4 years the Community Wireless movement has come a long way -coming from the grassroots into the policy sector, and that it is at a point of maturity where it may begin to really make a difference, and to really cohere as a movement. He argued "We are the right people (a very interesting group of people, coming from many perspectives, each with a commitment to doing things in the best way for the public or communities), at the right time (an important moment is opening up politically where many people are starting to see that the Washington solution of global capitalism is not what it promised to be, people are interested in alternatives), in the right place (we are everywhere! in many countries, fields, etc.)." And, he spoke about three ways/issues of going forward:
-We should introduce ourselves to international groups and at summits on diverse topics (health, economy, food, human rights, etc.) that the work we are doing in communications and technology would be useful for creating a wider net of connections.
-We should ask, "what are the things that are holding us back from doing the things we want to do?" (For example, "we need more open spectrum") And, figure out how to address these issues.
-We should put our solutions forward, and engage in partnerships, but we also need to be careful of co-option, something which can happen very subtly. This is not to say that, for example, we should refuse outright a donation of something like a Motorola mesh network, but that we should approach companies and other partners from the position of equals and with full understanding on both our parts of what a partnership would look like. e.g. engaging Motorola in a discussion about the reservations we might have about this donation, and ways that we can work together to address this.
Other interesting topics of conversation included:
-Talk about early U.S. history as it was characterized by a free press: this as something to be inspired by, and the relationship of the FCC to this history and to the current state of communications in the US. Ironically, ideas about communications "freedom" can be used both ways. For example, now there is a discourse focused on letting the market rule (aka letting the incumbents dominate) in the name of freedom. The FCC has played an interesting and at times disappointing role in the consolidation of media and the loss of media competition.
The FCC tends to direct its attention towards big companies – and with some good reason, as they can be strongly affected by FCC rulings and - the fact is - that these are currently the entities that are deploying much of U.S. broadband service. What is the current reality of U.S. communications in relation to our history of media freedom as a political tool? How can we draw on this powerful history? What should the role of the FCC be? The role of others?
-The intersection of the open source, human rights, community development, policy communities and issues.These various groups can help each other in their work. Our work needs to happen in two simultaneous steps:
1) What do we do now on the ground?
2) What do we need to change? How do we do it?
Common issues/challenges include:
*The regulatory environment has a huge effect on mobile device types > more openness would change this field and marketplace hugely. For example, there is a (non-technical) REASON why little Wal-Mart cell phones are so cheap and blackberries so expensive.
*The important of showing the real impact of this regulation > its underbelly. Showing in lurid detail why things are the way they are and why we should care. Showing how things actually work, not the official story.
*Data collection to demonstrate the bias in the current regulatory scheme (race, class, device, etc. divides). Role of open source community, potentially developing open source devices for communities.
*The US human rights network may be interested in funding some sort of research along these lines. They recently wrote a report on discrimination on the US.
-The relationship between "techie" groups (Ile Sans Fil, etc.) and community development groups (OneCommunity, etc.) in community wireless. Despite a focus on similar issues and technologies, where are the mis-communications, dis-connections, mis-designs between these two groups? How do they overlap? How are they different? Who are people/organizations who might play a bridging role between the two? How could they benefit each other?
-Amelia Bryne Potter
