The power of PI: The rise of community owned Internets
From the news story: "San Francisco activist groups rally against Google/Earthlink "monopoly" deal for free WiFi "
Several San Francisco activist groups and non-profit internet companies have joined together to protest a proposed deal between the city and a Google/Earthlink partnership to provide free WiFi.
Called the Public Net San Francisco coalition, the group issued a statement Friday insisting that the city government kill a multi-million dollar pending deal with Google and Earthlink. Instead, the coalition says the city's existing high speed fiber optic network has plenty of spare capacity to support a high-speed Internet network open to every resident regardless of income.
The Google/Earthlink deal with San Francisco could potentially establish a model for municipalities across the US and in other countries. It would be the start of a massive new market for giant Internet companies such as Google and Earthlink.
The San Francisco deal could put them in the forefront of a race with competitors to dominate the next big business opportunity: the gold rush to monetise local markets.
It has long been my opinion that communities will increasingly seek to own their "Internet airspace." Why should the local hardware store pay Google or Yahoo to reach its customers just a mile or two away? Why let Internet giants thousands of miles away become the gatekeepers for local commercial transactions? It sucks money out of a community.
But there is no need for a middleman, there is no need for a GOOG or YHOO tax on people engaged in their daily interactions with their neighbors. As offline and online world's become better integrated through a plethora of Web 2.0 social network applications, it will enable a People's Internet (PI).
Communities will succeed in owning their regional Internets because they will have the means-- the technologies are inexpensive and incredibly powerful. Commercial companies will still have a place within a People's Internet, providing services such as managing infrastructure operations. But it is the ownership and governance of a PI that is important, it determines who gets what slice, and it makes sure that there is fair use of a vital communal resource.
The ownership of an online commons by their communities will be seen as essential in guaranteeing free speech, the freedom to associate, and to have unrestricted and uncensored use of the Internet.
Governments around the world are increasingly spying on Internet users, restricting and censoring content, and mining Internet data to arrest dissidents.
Community owned Internets could potentially stymie such activities, especially if their charter were to protect their users from any type of monitoring--commercial or government spyware.
-----
Please also see SVW:
Are Google, Yahoo, Ebay and AMZN fast becoming the digital Wal-Marts of the emerging Internet 2.0 era?
Are Google, Yahoo, Ebay , Amazon (and maybe MSFT and Craig's List too) becoming the Wal-Marts of the digital age? It's an important question as they roll out more of their "local" products and fight...
Posted by Tom Foremski on April 18, 2006 4:00 AM
January 27, 2007 |
Permalink | Comment on this post
| Tag: People's Internet (PI)
View blog reactions | RSS Feed | SVW News Toolbar | SVW Newsletter
Trackback link for this entry:
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/MT-3.34-en/mt-tb.cgi/1535
Comments
Tom Foremski on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
David: I don't think the problem is finding a new term for a stilted conversation, but that 'conversation' is misleading when applied to social media because it's about something that is much more exciting and amazing. Conversation is a red herring when it comes to understanding this next phase of the Internet...
David Shantz on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I beleive that the nomenclatures may be what's failing us.
None of our current lexicon really fits exactly:
A CONVERSATION is really an exchange of ideas, with each response being dependant on the other and with the overall context...
A DISCOURSE is more of a formal debate.
PUBLICATION is as you say, to make content available publicly (but seems not to have enough emphasis on exhange)
Perhaps we need a new word.
"Publicly sharing an idea that is
Doug Millison on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I enjoyed reading this. McLuhan is worth re-reading, especially his book THE MECHANICAL BRIDE. Digital media are bringing us back to something like the manuscript era, where readers were usually writers who compiled their own books. Now we're creating & compiling our own "books" -- sometimes we call them "blogs" -- by mixing text & image & sound/music online. My "prose+comics scrapbook" format makes this explicit & ushers in a new, interactive scribal epoque, as we let readers become co-cr
Bud Gibson on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I agree with your bounds on what constitutes non-conversation, but somewhere in between is conversation. Ten to fifteen comments is often quite interactive. There are also side conversations that can happen in those large comment streams you mention. I've particularly seen this in some buzz threads.
Another small point of contention: you're using a term, publishing, which is increasingly becoming archaic. I tend to think of it as having been replaced by three distinct activities:
Seth Grimes on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
Personally, I think "conversation" works quite nicely, but I'd guess I'd define "conversation" more expansively than you do. Actually, I kind of like the WordNet definition: "the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information etc." (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conversation), which fits what we're doing on/with social media.
In any case, I wouldn't get hung up on conversation/publication. Isn't the point that social media supports both back-and-f
Dave Kellogg on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
I love the McLuhan quote.
If you read the comment streams on blogs, it's usually not a conversation.
It's usually what an old boss of mine used to call "parallel independent conversations" which is very much in line with the notion of two-way publishing.
Chris Dymond on Social Media Is Not About Conversations... It's About Something Much More Amazing
Question for me is: is it sufficient and to the greatest benefit for legal frameworks to simply consider social media as publishing, or should they adapt to consider a new category - something like a 'permanent conversation'?
In other words should it hold people accountable in the same way it does when the act of publishing and hence the motivations of the publisher are clear? Seems to me that the normative effect of maintaining that legal stance will be to force a change in behaviou
Andrew on Farmville valued $1B More Than Twitter By The Smart Money
The Microsoft deal with Facebook included an advertising deal--the $240M was for a share of the company and for the ad deal.
Thus, saying they bought at a valuation of $15B is significantly inaccurate.
Tom Foremski on Tech Giants Struggle With Copy And Paste...
George, sarcasm sometimes gets lost in translation, my apologies.
Daphne on Analysis: Could $GOOG Face Problems Outside Of China For Its Opposition To Chinese Government?
The Chinese governement has this stigma attached to it, basically don't mess with them. If google is mad enough to take them on, I wouldn't put it past them buying google and sacking the moron who made the decision.
George on Tech Giants Struggle With Copy And Paste...
And that significant lead will result from...adding something Apple has already added?
And that make sense to you?
Steve "@PodcastSteve" Lubetkin on Dirty Little Secrets: Social Media Is Terrible At Promoting Products
Tom, you and I are of the same mind on this. I am so tired of reading blogs or listening to podcasts or watching video embeds about social media people using social media to talk about social media. I really want to hear about specific business uses of social media. As I've said frequently, we need to remember that these tools are just communications channels, and we'll all be better off when we reach that day when it will sound really silly to hear a news headline like "Tom Foremski used Twi
Tom Nocera on Analysis: Financial Times Says GOOG Has Detailed Plans To Close China Search
An excellent analysis, Tom Foremski. I think there could be a great long term benefit for Google by its foray into China. By the timing of its very prominent presence there, coming during the great boom in Internet usage and awareness, Google's retreat, may become a kind of catalyst in the long term memories of tech savvy Chinese...the leaders of tomorrow. I forecast a triumphant return for Google one day, and it will be without the curse of censorship which only helps governments to contro
Jonathan Mendez on Why Ad Networks And Exchanges Will Never Help Publishers
Great post. I believe publishers can have advertising supported businesses. In fact I don't think that's debatable. First though they need better tools to leverage their audience data and their own ad matching systems. Essentially they need to build a new improved display channel. New pub controlled networks could then emerge that would crush the performance of what exists today. Then all the margin eating middle men would vanish and both ends of the transaction get yet more value from the m
Tom Foremski on Is the Future Of News Dependent On The Generosity Of Billionaire Philanthropists?
Eric, What's wrong with making a reasonable profit as a news organization? I agree with you that there is a race to the bottom going on because the econopmics of online news continue to worsen.
At some point, we have to figure out how to reward news organizations doing a good job otherwise we are in serious trouble as a society. That's what I would like to see Mr Hellman's money go towards -- figuring out a solution to one of the most difficult problems we have.
There's not
Tom Foremski on Techmeme's Gabe Rivera Is More Editor Than Aggregator...
Gabe: You should get a press pass and if you don't, you should ban SXSW stories from Techmeme. (SXSW gets very noisy, you'd be doing us all a big favor :)
Gabe on Techmeme's Gabe Rivera Is More Editor Than Aggregator...
Tom, two points:
1. You are a strange man.
2. Press passes cost $299? You sure? In any case I wasn't offered one. Please reread my tome on this matter: http://twitter.com/gaberivera/status/10238453895
Eric Westby on Is the Future Of News Dependent On The Generosity Of Billionaire Philanthropists?
Money is neither noble or ignoble. It is value-neutral.
You seem convinced that this project will be exclusively funded by the ultra-rich; obviously BANP's hope is that the community will step up and slowly allow the organization to be weaned off Hellman's seed money. I wish them luck -- but to be honest, the track record for local endeavors of this type isn't great so far. Still, I respect them for removing the profit motive, which can be corrosive and lead to a "race to the bottom"
Tom Foremski on Techmeme's Gabe Rivera Is More Editor Than Aggregator...
Danny: I agree... But press passes aren't free this year. They cost $299. Gabe can afford $299.
Marshall Clark on The Dirty Little Secret About Marketing...
This sums it up perfectly:
'Advertising doesn't sell stuff' by Dave Trott
http://digg.com/u1Ps9L