April 2006 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Re: [Air-l] network neutrality
by Bram Dov Abramson 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

air-l-request(a)listserv.aoir.org (15:02, 27.4.2006): >There is definitely an international impact with the potential passage >of COPE of 2006. The telecommunications and cable companies will have >the power to punish and reward content providers through pricing. This >is one way to prevent foreign competition on their marketplace. In >effect, the telecommunications and cable companies would have the >ability to place a toll on content providers such as Google, Yahoo, >Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, Apple and other content providers. I think that they have that power now. They certainly have the technical means. While my knowledge of American communication policy is pretty limited -- I'm writing from Canada -- I would be surprised to learn there were legal or regulatory levers in place to forbid this, so they probably have the legal means, too. The concern may be that, in addition to the opportunity, telcos are being imbued with the incentive to discriminate, too. As I say, others are probably better placed than I to describe U.S. legislative initiatives. But, as I understand it, there've been most recently: - a "Broadband Internet Transmission Services" (BITS) bill which would enshrine a sort of network neutrality precept: "shall not grant any preference or advantage" to any service over another. This is obviously fuzzy, but there it is. I suspect it did not go anywhere. - the COPE initiative now being discussed. As I understand it, the COPE bill's main thrust is about video distribution, ie cable TV. It would allow telcos to obtain national video franchises -- one cable license for the whole country. The fear is that telcos who are now cable distributors would want to discriminate in favour of their own services, and perhaps preempt those of others. A Democrat amendment therefore proposed language to COPE forbidding such discrimination, ie supporting network neutrality, in the context of a bill that would incent telcos to move forward with "unneutral" plans. That language looks not to be making it in, hence the controversy. The issue itself is a bit complex, because there's network neutrality and then there's network neutrality. There's always been *some* network "un-neutrality" -- caching providers like Akamai which provide pay-to-get-good-distribution; spam-fighting ISPs making life hard for outbound mail servers except their own; hard choices which ISPs inevitably have to make about dealing with a mix of traffic from different applications. But as the number of access providers shrinks and the involvement of these providers in application- and content-layer businesses grows, the fear is that this "unneutrality" will be taken to a new level in a way that frustrates non-telco-affiliated applications and content providers, thereby frustrating innovation generally. Seen another way, there's application-based discrimination, and firm-based discrimination. So far, most of the discrimination has been oriented around applications. The fear is that, now, it will get personal and become about who is providing the service, not what the service does to the network. And that, given the emerging duopoly -- broadband providers who don't own legacy copper (telcos, cablecos) don't seem to be living long lives -- there will be nowhere else to switch. (For those interested, in Canada the issue is largely untested. There have been a couple of flaps, but quickly resolved. We in theory have the means to address packet discrimination. A very recent Big Picture Sector Review, at http://www.telecomreview.ca, proposed doing even more about although, as always, noone really knows what the political life of their recommendations will be. The big hurdle is evidentiary, and our regulatory system is not very disposed to going out and gathering evidence on behalf of potential complainants -- something that, to prove network neutrality in a convincing way, may be necessary.) cheers Bram

1 0

net neutrality
by Nancy Baym 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Can someone with greater expertise than mine offer a quick primer on the net neutrality debate and bills now before the US congress/senate, including how, if at all, it would have ramifications outside the US? I know there are many people on here who pay a lot of attention to these kinds of issues, and I would really like to hear what you see going on here, Thanks, Nancy

2 2

Net neutrality resources
by Graham Longford 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Nancy and others, A number of indy media and public interest groups have been following this issue closely and have useful online resources, such as: Save the Internet Coalition http://www.savetheinternet.com/ FreePress http://www.freepress.net/ Harold Feld's blog - Tales From the Sausage Factory: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/ I am sure there is much more available that other AoIR listers can point you to. Hope these help. Graham -- Graham Longford, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Community Informatics Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto 140 St. George St., Rm 310 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5S 3G6 email: graham.longford(a)utoronto.ca

1 0

Re: [Air-l] net neutrality
by Heidelberg, Chris 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

There is definitely an international impact with the potential passage of COPE of 2006. The telecommunications and cable companies will have the power to punish and reward content providers through pricing. This is one way to prevent foreign competition on their marketplace. In effect, the telecommunications and cable companies would have the ability to place a toll on content providers such as Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, Apple and other content providers. The result would be that these companies would pass the costs directly to the consumer in form of "premium content" or some Other euphemistic term that disguised its true nature. Oh, but there is more. The telecom and cable companies could also have the ability to charge a rich medium access charge similar to how cable television charges you additionally for premium channels and pay per view for those of us who want things on demand on our portable handhelds. Handhelds like Blackberry's, pocketPCs and iPods may find themselves paying a handheld device fee whereas handhelds marketed by Verizon and AT&T may initially have this fee waived or have a plan that hides this waiver. This is a competitive advantage that the telecom and cable firms have over everyone and the prices will impact international consumers as prices rise. Here is some food for thought: What will happen in two to three years when the power companies are seriously ready to enter the Internet services game and satellite firms discover how to truly exploit wireless connectivity? Yes colleagues, prices are going up because the telecom and cable companies have built expensive fiber optic networks to handle the rich media content like video, gaming and VOIP and now Wall Street wants its profits from these expensive investments. So the K Street warriors have started handing outs campaign contributions and other inducements on the Hill to get this law passed in the name of consumer choice, affordable access and more competition. The reality is that there is no true choice and access will not be affordable and there will be less competition. The Center for Public Integrity actually has a really good book on the history of lobbying and the telecom industry. The real villain here is not the telecom and cable companies as much as it is the Congress and the policy makers who are too busy getting money and promises for their next job to worry about being stewards for the people. The people are simply outgunned and outmanned by the companies which are allowed under the First Amendment to lobby heavily as a result of the Virginia Pharmacy and Bellotti cases in 1976. Before that time, corporations were seen by the courts as a creature created by the law and not possessing rights more powerful than the individual. The international impact could also transform into more international anger with America by countries such as France and now Denmark with American companies like Microsoft and Apple that have used their market superiority to create both competitive advantages and stifle competition. Read Bagdikian's media monopoly and any of Lawrence Lessig's books such as Code. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Janna Anderson Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:39 AM To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] net neutrality April 26, 2006 Net Neutrality Debate Heats Up By Roy Mark/JupiterMedia's Internetnews.com WASHINGTON - Looking at possible antitrust implications of having telecoms and cable companies controlling 99 percent of U.S. broadband connections, a special task force of the House Judiciary Committee took up network neutrality. Like other committees that have heard testimony on network neutrality, the Judiciary panel heard conflicting interpretations on whether legislation is needed to ward off discrimination by broadband providers. Verizon and AT&T have publicly stated they intend to charge content providers different fees based on bandwidth consumption to access consumers, but will not block, degrade or impair delivery of the content to consumers. Tech companies and a growing coalition of consumer groups contend the plan amounts to discrimination since those who can pay the broadband providers' rates will have a competitive advantage over those who can't. "All sides of the net neutrality debate agree that consumers should be control of their Internet experience," Walter McCormick of the U.S. Telecom Association said. "Where we differ is on whether consumers alone should foot the bill for the advanced networks that drive the Internet's growth and evolution." McCormick said Internet content providers seeking to profit on new high-speed fiber networks should not expect a free pass on all costs associated with the increased bandwidth capacity to deliver services and applications. "If you want more, then you pay more, is as American as it comes," he said. "It is a straightforward market proposition. As companies move into live video and gaming and advanced services, they will be seeking more bandwidth." Columbia University Professor Tim Wu spun it another way. "It's as if the electric company one day announced that refrigerators made by General Electric would henceforth not work quite as well as those made by Samsung," Wu said. "That would be a shock, because when it comes to the electric grid and the Internet, people are used to a network that they are free to use as they wish." Wu said the issue of network neutrality is really an issue about market power concentration. "Whatever AT&T and others may claim as motives, the potential for abuse of market power is obvious to everyone," he said. "Ninety-four percent of Americans have either zero, one or two choices for broadband access. Many of us wish things were otherwise, but they are not." Given the concentration of market power between the telcos and the cable companies, Wu said it was clear AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other power players coiuld make more money by distorting competition between Internet firms. "It [AT&T] can, through implicit threats of degradation, extract a kind of protection money for those with the resources to pay up," Wu said. "It's basically the Tony Soprano model of networking, and while it makes sense for whoever is in a position to make threats, it isn't particularly good for the nation's economy, innovation or consumer welfare." The House Judiciary debate came on the eve of a vote in the House Commerce Committee on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE). The centerpiece of COPE is national video franchising for IPTV providers such as Verizon and AT&T. With the goal of increasing competition in the pay television market, the proposal enjoys wide support on both sides of the aisle. More controversial is network neutrality. Republicans see little problem with the tiered access approach proposed by the telecoms and leave enforcement of network neutrality violations to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Democrats and a growing coalition of tech companies and consumer groups, want the FCC's network neutrality principles, which have no force of law, turned into statutory law. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is expected to propose an amendment to COPE to do just that. A similar proposal three weeks ago was handily defeated by the Republicans, 23-8. On 4/27/06 11:33 AM, "Nancy Baym" <nbaym(a)ku.edu> wrote: > Can someone with greater expertise than mine offer a quick primer on > the net neutrality debate and bills now before the US congress/senate, > including how, if at all, it would have ramifications outside the US? > I know there are many people on here who pay a lot of attention to > these kinds of issues, and I would really like to hear what you see > going on here, > > Thanks, > Nancy > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change > options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ -- Janna Quitney Anderson Assistant Professor of Communications Director of Internet Projects School of Communications Elon University andersj(a)elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) (336) 446-0486 (h) _______________________________________________ The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

1 0

ALAIC - deadline 30/04
by Suely Fragoso 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Prezados colegas. Lembro a todos que o prazo para inscrição de trabalhos no VIII Congresso Alaic vai até o dia 30 deste mês de abril. Os trabalhos devem ser remetidos diretamente ao coordenador do GT de interesse. A relação dos coordenadores, bem como todos os demais dados sobre o evento, que acontece de 19 a 21/07, na Unisinos, estão no sítio www.unisinos.br/eventos/alaic. Destaco ainda que estudantes em geral (de Doutorado, Mestrado e Graduação) pagam preços especiais, sendo que os valores mais reduzidos, para todos os interessados, foram prorrogados e estão valendo até o dia 8 de maio. Esperando encontrá-los durante o evento, Sue Fragoso

1 0

Textbook recommendation
by NIP JOYCE 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

I would be teaching an undergraduate semester course Social Aspects of Media Technology next year. Could anyone recommend a good textbook? Thanks Nip Yee-man, Joyce, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Journalism Hong Kong Baptist University Kowloon Tong Hong Kong T: (852) 3411 7834 F: (852) 2336 1691

1 0

Books on interactive media authoring
by Christer Clerwall 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Hi I am looking for books on interactive-/multimedia authoring. More specifically I am looking for books on how to write scripts for interactive media, work with storyboards, flowcharts, planning and so forth. The ideal book should cover the process from idea to finished product. If you now of articles that cover this area it could work just as well. /Christer Clerwall -------------------------------------------------- Christer Clerwall Lecturer/Ph. D. candidate Faculty of Economy, Communication and IT Department of Media and Communication Studies Karlstad University, Sweden +46 54-700 11 06 christer.clerwall(a)kau.se http://www.clerwall.se/christer/en/

1 0

Re: [Air-l] Technology and Literacy text
by Heidelberg, Chris 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Doug: Have you look at Gee's other books. What is interesting is that my dissertation (which is 3/4 done- is focusing on "Edutainment & Convergence: How Entertainment Techniques and Technology Can Be Utilized In Higher Education.") has had similar difficulty finding many works on this subject (Gee is one of the gurus) because of higher education's resistance to change and especially technology. I actually altered my dissertation's focus so that I could get answers from the perspective of entertainment professionals after reading in much of my literature how education has a potentially great future because of handheld mult-media devices, phones, games and convergence in general. Let me know what you decide on using. What is funny that when I started writing and researching three years ago there was not much work on this side of the pond on my subject, but now everyone I meet these days has an interest in gaming and how to use it in academia and finally some good works like Gee's is finally being recognized. Good luck. Please send me some of your writings or at least point me to where I can download and buy some texts that you have created. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Eyman Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:17 PM To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology and Literacy text Chris, McLuhan's work is certainly important, but moreso I think in terms of media literacy (read: understanding media from the receiver's perspective)...but it doesn't do much in terms of production. I'm reading "literacy and technology" to speak more to how people use technologies to support their literate activities (reading and writing--both alphabetic and multimodal), which includes both critical analysis (in terms of reading media/technologies) and writing/building/composing digital texts. Mark -- I'd add the following a short piece that connects digital composing practices with MOOs and other remediative technologies to the New London Group's take on multimodality, which might be useful (and not just because I wrote it ;) Digital Literac(ies), Digital Discourses, and Communities of Practice: Literacy Practices in Virtual Environments. Eyman, D. Cultural Practices of Literacy Study Working Paper #12 http://educ.ubc.ca/research/cpls/content/working.html (this is coming out as a chapter in a book next month, but the other work in that text includes literacy studies of Somali refugees, migrant farm workers, etc -- good stuff in terms of literacy studies but not focused on technology as such) Doug Heidelberg, Chris wrote: > Mark & Doug: > > Consider using the seminal work by McLuhan & Fiore, The Medium Is The > Message. It is a short and quck book but it was prophetic. > > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mark Warschauer > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 9:04 AM > To: air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology and Literacy text > > Doug and others--thanks for your replies. I am planning on using > Gee's videogames book (cited by Doug below) and also my own book, > Laptops and Literacy (coming out from Teachers College Press by the > end of summer 2006, which covers use of computers in K-12 settings). > I want a third book that provides an overview of the relationship > between technology and literacy, probably something similar to Ilana > Snyder's edited books but if possible more up to date. > > Thanks again-- > mark > > >>Mark, >> >>I'm wondering if you mean the use of technology to study literacies, >>technology-supported literate activities, or techno-literacies such as >>information literacy? >> >>Ilana Snyder has edited two collections that might be useful for a >>general "technology and literacy" course that hits each of these > > approaches: > >>_Page to Screen; Taking Literacy into the Electronic Age_ (1997) and >>_Silicon Literacies; Communication, Innovation and Education in the >>Electronic Age_ (2002) >> >>Gunther Kress's _Literacy in the New Media Age_ (2002) would be >>appropriate for an advanced undergraduate course; he takes issue with >>applying the "literacy" label to processes other than reading and >>writing alphabetic texts, which is a key question for >>technology/literacy studies. >> >>For an accessible text that focuses primarily on gaming (and that can >>be used in a variety of interesting ways), there's Jim Gee's _What >>Videogames Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy_ (2004). >> >>Finally, Gail Hawisher and Cindy Selfe's _Literate Lives in the >>Information Age: Narratives on Literacy from the United States_ (2004). >> >>The above list of texts comes mostly from the fields of literacy >>studies and computers and writing. >> >> >>Doug >> >>Douglas Eyman, Senior Co-Editor >>Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy >>htp://english.ttu.edu/kairos/ >> >>Mark Warschauer wrote: >> >>> Can anybody recommend a text on Technology and Literacy to be used >>>for an undergraduate course on the topic to be taught in spring 2007? >>> >>> Thanks-- >>> Mark >> >>_______________________________________________ >>The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the >>Association > > >>of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or >>unsubscribe at: >>http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org >> >>Join the Association of Internet Researchers: >>http://www.aoir.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change > options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > _______________________________________________ > The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the > Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change > options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > _______________________________________________ The air-l(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/

2 1

Call for Papers: M/C Journal 'free' Issue
by Axel Bruns 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - 26 April 2006 M/C - Media and Culture http://www.media-culture.org.au/ is calling for contributors to the 'free' issue of M/C Journal http://journal.media-culture.org.au/ M/C Journal is looking for new contributors. M/C is a crossover journal between the popular and the academic, and a blind- and peer-reviewed journal. To see what M/C Journal is all about, check out our Website, which contains all the issues released so far, at <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/>. To find out how and in what format to contribute your work, visit <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/journal/submission.php>. Call for Papers: 'free' Edited by Trebor Scholz and Rachel Cobcroft Today, freedom is far from free. Network and hardware access bears often ignored costs. 'Free and open' at times means 'closed and expensive'. Freedom can be conceptualised to fit innumerable agendas. Freedom is the freedom to say no, to withdraw your collaboration, to refuse friendly cooperation. To be free is to live one's contradictions. But whose freedom do we praise? There is no solace in the liberty of being employed but poor, surveilled and uninsured. For Stewart Brand the central hacker ethos indicates that 'information wants to be free'. Lessig's Free Culture and Stallman's Free Software mark the tension between proprietary and open source domains - the battle between intellectual 'property' and creativity. The flood of civic, participatory technologies such as the blog contributes to a larger number of voices being heard. Online, commons-based peer production creates novel, economic realities that no venture capitalist can kill. For Yochai Benkler these alternative economies are not fads but real facts. They are not utopian dreams but lived reality. Sociable Web media allow for larger individual freedom and the potential to co-create society. The freedom to remix, to mash up, to reconceptualise, recontextualise, hybridise, breathes in free cultural formations. Knowledge repositories like Wikibooks allow for knowledge-on-call, albeit bringing access which is at times partial and exclusive. Such openly accessible initiatives out- collaborate even the best-paid Britannica editors. Freedom is an inalienable right that has often been overruled in the name of justice and liberty. Citizens worldwide are armchair passengers on the nightly news train or watch reality TV shows such as 'Big Brother'. They dream of their lives as thankfully being 'free'. After all, to be free is a guaranteed human right, as enshrined by the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Captured in this document is the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of expression and opinion; and the right to life, liberty, and security of person. This issue of M/C Journal asks a question which intentionally traverses politics, media, philosophy, techno-studies, and new media art: to what extent are we, and can we expect to be, free? The United States' statesman Benjamin Franklin reminds us that 'they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Bertolt Brecht associated a blue sky with freedom. How much space is there for freedom in spaces of your actions, thoughts and feelings, online and off? Ubiquitous multinationals sell us the freedom to customize as privilege of the user. Increasingly, companies give away things for free. Enticing 'free gifts' must be paid back in the long run to the Googles and Ebays. We buy into the hierarchies of sharing and exchange. Are freedom, independence and autonomy merely illusions in the participatory panopticon? The potential of being on the loose is the power to shape civic society while learning to live with hybridity. Which threats to freedom are we prepared to accept in the pursuit of the rhetoric of freedom? Can we live with the cruel lie that to preserve freedom, one must strike pre-emptively? We invite contributions from theorists, practitioners, and all those who dare to reclaim the discourse of freedom. Feel free to contribute! Send 1000-1500 word articles to free(a)journal.media-culture.org.au. For more information: free(a)journal.media-culture.org.au Article deadline: 26 June 2006 Issue release date: 23 Aug. 2006 M/C Journal was founded (as "M/C - A Journal of Media and Culture") in 1998 as a place of public intellectualism analysing and critiquing the meeting of media and culture. Contributors are directed to past issues of M/C Journal for examples of style and content, and to the submissions page for comprehensive article submission guidelines. M/C Journal articles are blind peer-reviewed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further M/C Journal issues scheduled for 2006: 'collaborate': article deadline 6 March 2006, release date 3 May 2006 'street': article deadline 1 May 2006, release date 28 June 2006 'free': article deadline 26 June 2006, release date 23 August 2006 'filth': article deadline 21 August 2006, release date 18 October 2006 'jam': article deadline 16 October 2006, release date 13 December 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/C - Media and Culture is located at <http://www.media-culture.org.au/>. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/C Journal is online at <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/>. All past issues of M/C Journal on various topics are available there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- end Dr Axel Bruns -- General Editor editor(a)media-culture.org.au M/C - Media and Culture http://www.media-culture.org.au/

1 0

size of open source community?
by Katie Bessiere 25 Apr '06

25 Apr '06

Hi everyone- This is actually a question that I'm forwarding on from a friend of mine. Does anyone know (an estimate of) the 'size' of the open source community? Also, any articles or research that might address this would be helpful as well. Thanks! katie

2 1