UPDATE: I, like many people on this issue, have been erroneously spreading around some misinformation. I’ve cleaned up a few portions.
Most of my original argument isn’t really valid anymore.
Here’s my new argument, short and sweet form: Don’t cut MTN’s budget to fund the “Digital Portals” project. The Digital Portals project is over-engineering a simple issue with a complicated solution with old technology. Crippling MTN’s budget does the opposite of what the city is trying to achieve with the Digital Portals: giving Minneapolis’ communities access and training to communicate broadly in the city.
There’s a lot of discussion and misinformation about Minneapolis’ 2008 Recommended Budget that will cut an additional $100,000 out of MTN’s operating budget. This recommendation by the mayor is pretty nasty considering that $50,000 was already cut from MTN’s budget but more importantly, this $100,000 cut is intended to fund a “Wireless Portals Project” run by USI Wireless created by The Digital Access Project being run by someone.
How I see it, the One issue is that MTN is an independent non-profit that centers itself around encouraging creation of and access to programs and information. They’re not in the cable or internet service provider business. For over twenty years, they have been Minneapolis’ primary conduit for citizen media. On the contrary, USI Wireless and Comcast are for-profit service providers. Why take money away from the partially city-funded organization that’s suited for creating the content for and with the community and giving it to a program that’s operated by a provider of not content but connectivity completely new project that somewhat overlaps what MTN is already doing a different way?
Currently, Comcast significantly funds MTN through the city. From Section 4 of Minneapolis’ 2008 Recommended Budget (PDF):
Comcast collects this “franchise fee�? from subscribers to help fund public services such as police, fire and public works as they relate to maintenance and regulation of the City’s rights-of-way. Comcast also collects an “access fee�? from subscribers to support public, educational and government (PEG) access programming. It is estimated Comcast will collect $350,000 from subscribers for the access fee in 2008. There are ten PEG channels in the City of Minneapolis: four public, three educational and three government channels.
Although funds from Comcast’s Access Fee are earmarked and go to MTN, Comcast’s Franchise Fee generates around $2.9 million. While this goes to the city’s general fund, some of that money goes to MTN. One could argue that some of this money from Comcast is being redirected from MTN to a program operated by Comcast’s direct competitor in Minneapolis for internet service, USI Wireless. (ed: Edited for clarity) On one hand, I’m surprised that Comcast hasn’t jumped in and made a case to argue against this $100,000 cut, but on the other hand Comcast’s obligation on these access and franchise fees may be going away soon and they may simply not want to be involved. I wasn’t able to find a strong, linkable source on this. If you know more about Comcast’s obligations or lack thereof in the future, please post in the comments.
More from the 2008 Recommended Budget:
The Mayor recommends reducing the Minneapolis Telecommunications Network contract by $100,000 on a one-time basis; this funding is directed to the Minneapolis Wireless Portals Project. The department will reduce its capital expenditures by $25,000, a reduction not anticipated in the financial direction for 2008.
What’s the Minneapolis Wireless Portals Project? Good question. Many people still don’t understand what the Wireless Portals are. When I was watching the Ways and Means hearing discussing this on October 31st, Councilmember Scott Benson joked that he should be dressed up like Gary Schiff from the 70’s because he was unaware of what these portals are and what they mean. On November 16, there’s a Wireless Expo at City Hall that will help explain this.
From what I understand, The Wireless Portals Project is essentially what I’ll call a “Minneapolis Intranet.” It’s what everyone will have access to when they can connect to Wireless Minneapolis anywhere in the city. It’ll have messages from the community, city departments and city hall, and some form of community websites and programming. While this Intranet is free, if you want to access the Internet using Wireless Minneapolis, you need to order service. I would assume that The content located on the Wireless Portals Project will be accessible through the Internet even if you don’t use Wireless Minneapolis. A big mistake if that’s not the case, in my opinion.
UPDATE: More on the Wireless Portal Project is in this hard-on-the-eyes PowerPoint presentation. You can also watch a video of Catherine Settanni giving this presentation. (Thanks, Chuck)
It makes sense to me that MTN should be partnered with both Comcast and USI Wireless to continue MTN’s mission of providing city and citizen media on both platforms.
MTN as an organization already has an infrastructure for training citizens on creating and producing programs and other content. They already have a strong reach with underrepresented communities and have staff and content that’s very diverse. Being they are in part funded by the City of Minneapolis already, I think it would be a waste to not have them working with USI Wireless for developing, from what I understand, comparatively similar or parallel content that they currently put on cable television. Cutting MTN’s budget doesn’t seem to be the right answer for how I understand it.
In addition to all the citizen-created Minneapolis content, there are cable channels run by MTN devoted to broadcasting city council, school board and other meetings and events. Why not utilize the same crews that Minneapolis is already helping pay for push the same content to the Wireless Portals Project?
UPDATE: The more that I learn about it, the Wireless Portals Project certainly does a lot of different things that MTN does, but I don’t think is very necessary or effective at this time considering there is no available funding for it. Cutting it out of MTN shouldn’t have even been on the table, in my strong opinion.
Also, I’m finding a bunch of reasons that make me not really want to be involved. What a huge mess.
To learn more, the City Pages has a year old article that covers some important history on MTN and their relationship with Minneapolis. Peter Fleck on his PF HYPER Blog does a great job covering Wireless Minneapolis and has some of the contracts and documents regarding Wireless Minneapolis at pfhyper.com. Over at the E-Democracy Forums, everyone else chimes in (some of the information here is not accurate). Have a strong opinion? Contact your city council member.
Comments 12
If you know more about Comcast’s obligations or lack thereof in the future, please post in the comments.
I think what you’re looking for regarding is Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 See also, What is PEG
—–
A requirement of reasonable third-party access top cable systems
will mean a wide diversity of information sources for the public
— the fundamental goal of the First Amendment — without the need
to regulate the content of programming provided over cable….
Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the
speaker’s soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed
leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have
not had access to electronic media with the opportunity to become
sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas.
PEG channels also contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing
local schools into the home, and by showing the public local
government at work.(7)
The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992 further explained the rationale:
Leased access and public access programming uniquely allow
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 11:04 ¶individuals and groups to communicate their messages to the
general public. Educational access allows local schools to
supplement classroom learning and to reach out to teach those who
are beyond school age or unable to attend classes. The government
channel allows for a local “mini-C-SPAN,” thus contributing to an
informed electorate, essential to the proper functioning of
government.(8)
Right, but what I’ve heard that there is something that may change regarding these acts in the future or some new legislation that may change how PEG is funded in the future.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 11:13 ¶It could happen, but they’d have to change the law.
“Other Cable Act provisions designed to increase the variety of programming choices, such as PEG access, must-carry, and program access rules, remain applicable to open video systems.”
From The 1996 Telecommunications Act
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 11:23 ¶As I understand it, content in the community wireless deal will include things like community sites (longfellow.org), Minneapolis city sites and services (park board, police, libraries, etc.), and some community news sites. All will be accessible through USI wireless without a paid subscription to the service. Basically, USI will be required to provide free access to sites meeting certain public access criteria.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 12:04 ¶Great piece, Aaron.
I want to clarify that none of the $100K will go to US Internet. USI is actually putting up some money in support of the community portal system.
According to Catherine Settanni (under contract with the City and working on the portals), the money would fund the following:
1. Design, development, and build out the Community Portal websites
2. Training for the 13+ NRP defined neighborhood organizations that currently have no web presence
3. Building and testing interactive applications that would allow 2-way interaction between city residents and City staff and elected officials;
4. Supporting the development of other portal applications recommended public meetings (such as community calendars)
I would argue that numbers 3 & 4 could wait and frankly $100K would be stretched pretty thin to cover those along with 1 & 2. (Number 4 scares me a bit in wondering if they are looking at reinventing wheels instead of using what’s available — hopefully open source).
The question is where will any money come from to support the portal system. MTN produces local content today. I don’t want to seriously impair them to fund an unknown quantity. It would be nice if a plan, timeline, and some technical details of the community portal system were shared with the community.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 19:10 ¶Here’s what the contract says about the portals (“community log-in sites”) and walled garden:
Provider will, at the written request of the DITF, create and develop up to ninety (90) location based community log-in sites and associated templates for City neighborhoods that will allow free access to selected government sites, community service sites, CTC sites, neighborhood associations, and local event calendars; as well as offer a platform for localized advertising. The community log-in sites will include multi-lingual functionality common to the community. Provider will provide tools and processes as well as technical support for developing and implementing community content; and contract with City- approved consultant to oversee interface design, content development, and training for community groups.
Provider will provide a “walled garden” as a free level of service throughout the City. The walled garden service will provide limited access to the internet to access City web pages and related City and governmental information.
From pages 6 & 7. I have the contract available for download at http://pfhyper.com/
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 19:23 ¶Thanks doing this research.
There is a national flurry of activity on a state-by-state level..save public access groups are increasing. They just lost in Wisconsin and it looks like redlining will be allowed (some rural wisconsin areas will be uncovered).
The cable, telecommunications and servers were unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted from congress a couple of years ago. They have mounted an extensive and expensive campaign on a state-by-state basis. The FCC is developing some new interal administrative rules that will not go to Congress and are not favorable to public access.
While the media conglomerates are competing against each other for favorable treatment and new markets…they seem to have public access in their target range.
Some of this legislation also involves having the state, not the municipalities, negotiate service which would eliminate the corporate incentive to provide community benefit packages. Also legislation to allow cable/telecom/net’s to renig on municipal contracts if it is warranted by market and economic conditions…Save money by eliminating city requirements, re-negotiate fees and free up public access channels/sites for commercial use.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 19:56 ¶Google ‘fcc and public access’..save public access groups…Manhattan has an active one as do Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa…
Bill Moyers is on one video..i’ll see if i can find the website.
found the websites:
http://www.freepress.net/news/27999
(also has state tracking system)
http://saveaccess.org/node/1767
http://rghm.wordpress.com/
http://baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/
article is 1/3 down page-Hearing …net neutrality bill.
http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/digital_destiny/broadband_strategies
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 20:20 ¶Ed- Thanks for the clarification on content of the portals.
Peter- I edited a couple bits of my post to remove portions that imply USI Wireless is getting any of the $100,000 in question… and I guess it’s Catherine Settanni that’s getting the $100,000 to develop… THIS?? ?!!?
Peter and Cheryl- Thanks for filling in a lot of gaps on this issue, I really appreciate it. It helps a lot.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 20:35 ¶Aaron, here’s a video of Catherine Settanni explaining the community portal project in detail.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 22:14 ¶Chuck- Thanks for the video. That helped a lot.
All- I’ve changed up the post a lot now that I’ve learned more. I’ve talked with a bunch more people and my, what a serious mess this is. Wow. I don’t think I want to even be involved in the discussion anymore. Just don’t cut MTN’s budget!
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 22:56 ¶Aaron and all, Thanks for all of the in- depth thought on this issue. We very much appreciate the conversation. MTN is deep in a process of long range planning with Tom Borrup who is the former Executive Director of Intermedia Arts. We know that nothing is stable in this current landscape, our organization has adapted and changed as technology and the political landscape change. We do adapt but we remain true to our mission of being a free speech forum open to all citizens. We will continue to serve artists, political activists, religious folks and whoever shows up at our ‘free informational workshop’ -mtn.org to find out when the next one will be held.
Peace,
Posted 14 Nov 2007 at 11:01 ¶Pam Colby
Executive Director
MTN
Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
MTN & the Portals…
Stakeholders in this issue have not been brought to the table for an in-depth discussion of options and how to pay for them….
[...] read what Aaron Landry has to say over here (and check the comments where I weigh in). For a longer and more chaotic discussion, check out the [...]
Post a Comment