|
| Home > New Media > Community Access for the Digital Age
... the Digital Watershed |
| Community Access for the Digital Age
... the Digital Watershed | | Date Created: Nov 19, 2004, 02:45 PM |
by Gregory Daigle
Cable access television, the municipal service that provides coverage of local city council meetings, community lectures and talk shows hosted by local citizens, has benefited cable subscribers in communities for decades. But the television viewing audience, especially the young, is increasingly trading TV time for Internet time. The result is a growing gap in community-centered programming for those who choose online experiences as their preferred media. This article suggests a model for improving community-centered programming through "digital community access", a service that complements traditional cable access services.
Community Television Turns 30 Something
Cable access television (also known as cable communications, public access, community television, and PEG - Public, Education and Government) began in Dale City, Virginia in 1968 1. It was established to provide a community-centered voice over the newly established cable television network. Municipal cable networks were (and often still are) local monopolies. In the late 1960s establishing an alternative to corporate television programming on cable networks was considered a "free speech" issue and resulted in pressure on cable system owners to make access available to citizens through their local municipal government. In 1972 the FCC issued "Third Report and Order", a mandate that required all cable systems in the top 100 U.S. television markets to provide three access channels, one each for educational, local government and public use 2. It also required the cable companies to provide equipment and facilities for community members to produce programs. The FCC mandate was later extended to include communities with over 3,500 subscribers.
Since those early days of cable access many state governments, including Minnesota's 3, have codified that relationship between exclusive cable services and local governmental units. Access channels provided by the cable networks have focused upon community-centered programming. They include coverage of local government (school board meetings, city government meetings, and state legislative sessions), community and educational lectures, high school sports, talk shows and other programs representing a wide range of diverse community interests.
Cable access programs are shaped and defined by the technology of television. Like all television programs, cable access programs can be tape-delayed or live. The relatively low resolution of analog television works well for video imagery but less so for graphics and text. Finally, in standard analog television the video and audio travel one way ... to the viewers ... without a direct back-channel. Digital and "interactive" television may change some of these givens by allowing higher resolution for text and graphics and some limited capacity for interactivity, but such capability is rare for cable access facilities.
TV is down, Online is up
The Internet is now accessed by 75% of the nation's population 4. Another popular consumer technology, DVD players, has been adopted by consumers faster than any other electronic device. Yet DVD player penetration in U.S. households is projected to be only 66% by the end of 2004 5 . At the same time, youth markets are online more and watching the television less. Currently one-quarter of all Internet users say that the Internet has decreased the time they spend watching television, with fully one-third (37%) of broadband users saying this 6. Cable access remains an important community resource yet these and other trends indicate that it is losing potential viewers to the Internet even as the number of cable households climbs.
One of the limitations of cable access is that its facilities are centralized. The editing facilities, studio, and cable head-end are usually in a single location. Only portable equipment such as cameras are made available to citizen-producers for remote shoots on-location. This locally centralized model of cable access becomes an unintended hurdle for new producers and their productions. Even with the addition of consumer-owned digital video cameras and consumer PC video editing, the scheduling of highly desired studio time and broadcast slots limit access and act to curtail a wider range of community viewpoints.
Due to the limitations of bandwidth and the broadcast calendar, cable access is suitable for a limited number of viewpoints, perhaps in the hundreds. When conceived as a new service in the 1970s, planning for a moderate diversity of viewpoints seemed all that would be necessary. But with the increasing popularity of the Internet, citizens are regularly "publishing" their viewpoints not in the hundreds or even the thousands, but in the millions as personal Web sites. Cable access, though a valued resource, can not provide this level of access.
How many individual Web sites are there? That's impossible to say. However, the Google search engine, widely considered the most effective as of this writing, currently claims to index over 4 billion distinct web pages. However, not every page is indexed by the Google search engine, and Web sites are made up of multiple pages. But even if a conservative estimate is made, it is clear that there are far more Web sites existing than the total number of cable access programs ever produced. In fact, some 44% of U.S. Internet users currently create content online ... that's 53 million American adults and youth. And creating content is not reserved exclusively for only the well educated or upper income brackets. Online content creators are as likely to be female as they are to be male, as likely to not have graduated from high school as they are to have graduated from college, as likely to be African-American as they are white, and as likely to have income levels from $30-50K as they are $50-75K 7. Online content creation from the community is not only commonplace, it is also "equal opportunity".
Are Web sites the best model for bringing community access and discourse into the digital age? Perhaps not. First of all, Web refers to the World Wide Web. Once your Web site is up, it is just as easily viewed from Europe or Asia as it is by your neighbor down the street. Is the focus upon community-centered issues diluted by worldwide access? Are there advantages to being able to limit your audience geographically? Cable access programs are available only over the geographic reach of the community cable system and so their program content tends to be geographically targeted. With cable, you can't go beyond your geographic target. With the Web, you can't limit it.
Digital Media is not TV
Because the majority of Internet access is still through dial-up most access is currently ill-suited to broadband video content. But even if broadband were to dominate access, streaming video over the Internet typically offers little in the way of collaborative or interactive capabilities. Streaming video over the Internet offers little over cable television.
In the late 1920s and early 30s the first generation of television producers faced a similar question. What makes for good television programs? In those days television programming was a mixed bag of dance ensembles, film clips and orchestra programs. Early producers found that you couldn't just sit in front of a television camera and read a script. Before long television included more suitable programs formerly hosted by radio, such as sports broadcasts, political speeches, quiz shows, even Milton Berle. It was several years before the "rules" of television were created and mature content developed for television came into its own. So should cable access programs be the production model for digital community access? It may work technically, but the result may not take full advantage of the capabilities of the medium.
When television programming was being invented, it was a tabula rasa, an empty slate. But online content has already reached maturity (or at least its adolescence) without significant broadcast content to boost its acceptance. Due to the relatively slow adoption of broadband, video compression techniques, and the copyright fears of Hollywood, online content has had time to established itself without reliance upon broadcast media and its mantra of the uninterrupted "viewer experience".
The "viewer experience" is what television is all about. Attend the National Association of Broadcasters annual conference and you will hear repeated again and again just how important that uninterrupted experience is to viewers. But is it important to online media users? Users of online media aren't just ambivalent about the sacrosanct viewer experience, they reject it completely. This is frequently reported by studies of how online users multi-task, attending to several media streams at once. Is this shorter attention span a symptom of lack of focus, or, a coping mechanism for sampling a torrent of competing media streams? Regardless of cause, it is not the way that television is watched and therefore the model for programming must change for online experiences.
Online content differs from TV programming in choice, directionality and level of interactivity. Web access is fragmented into a ubiquity of "channels" ... tens of millions of sites, remember? ... not the mere few hundreds that cable access can offer. The Internet is two-way, whereas TV has a "one-way" directionality from broadcaster (or cable head-end) to viewer. Yes, you can dial a 900 number to vote for your favorite "idol" but that requires a phone. Finally, Web content is "interactive". What we mean by "interactive" varies from user to user and requires some clarification. But first, can television be interactive?
Since the late 90's broadcasters have been hopeful about "enhanced" or "interactive" television (ITV) technology as a step towards "convergence". ITV can be supplied over cable or, infrequently, broadcast 8 . But ITV is most likely a "bridge" or "tweener" technology. One of the limitations of ITV content is its direct association with a particular program. Watching The McNeal News Hour with ITV allows the translucent overlay of text and graphics pre-selected to be associated with the broadcast content. Interactivity is limited to simple on-screen menu options and often selected by "tabbing" with a non-mouse remote. Even with more capable interfaces, the content is usually unavailable after the duration of the broadcast to to preserve the "viewer experience" for the next program. So content is limited by both topic and duration. By most standards of the Internet this would NOT be a good online experience. Adoption rates of ITV hardware are miserably low and foreshadow that even if this bridge technology is fully realized, that it's a bridge to nowhere.
A True Community Discourse
Typically, Web sites limit their level of interactivity to simple navigations such as linking between pages of content. For example, a consumer may upload a set of vacation photographs to their homepage and you (as the user) may select between viewing different years of vacation photos, but little more. The Web sites become repositories of static content, not dynamic information. They often lack the ability to exchange ideas with others. Merely giving community members tutorials on how to build their own Web sites may not be the answer for dynamic community discourse.
A truly dynamic interactive capability would be like a conversation. In fact, it may be a conversation. Web content is only one manifestation of the protocols that underlie the Internet. Don't forget chats, instant messaging, email, or FTP for upload/downloading files. Online communities frequently employ these dynamic environments. Online social networking tools like Meetup or Friendster allow people with common interests to identify each other, share communications online, even meet in person. Collaborative tools such as Net Meeting or Groove Workspace allow users to share and edit files simultaneously, chat, even teleconference. Online games with virtual 3D engines allow users to interact in real time over networks, sometimes in the personas of knights, monsters or military soldiers.
Collaborative content would promote new forms of performance media, mobile Weblogs, e-learning and community discourse promoting a greater understanding and sharing of ideas and experiences. Collaborative tools and content typically provide a more participative rich-media discourse for sharing content and opinion. Social networking tools and collaborative software tools are a means to organize people for local opinion sharing and decision making. "Eighty to ninety percent of [real-world] social networks have a digital component" according to Antony Brydon 9, president and cofounder of social network analyst firm Visible Path. Users would be able to identify interested participants by employing social networking tools that identify relationships and shared interests between users. Participants would then be free to collaborate online through chats, white-boards, file sharing, editing documents and even edit presentations together.
A new model of digital community access would employ these dynamic elements preferentially over traditional Web sites. The offering would be inclusive, community-oriented and uniquely distinct from standard Web content offerings. Software templates for the online planning of community-centered projects would be designed and developed for community organizers. For example, if a city resident wanted to organize work parties for a community garden plot they would ask people to go online and sign up for tasks such as procuring organic fertilizer, tilling, and providing refreshments for the work party. This can all be done online. These programs would permit experiences more interactive than "streaming" of stored audio and video clips.
Templates and tools would also be for use by digital artists, playwrights and musicians. Near real-time collaboration between artists and audience would provide a new model of community participation. The collaborative content designed to entertain or educate would be developed by community producers. For example, a director may stage a play about the Grand Canyon and have members of the community send photographs from their Grand Canyon vacations over the Internet during the play. The images would be screened for content and projected onto the play's scenery in real time.
Wireless Community Access
As mentioned before, wiring a city for fiber-optic cable is an expensive proposition. Fortunately, the cost of "Wi-Fi" is low compared to laying cables. Wi-Fi is one of the fastest growing wireless network technologies for connecting computer users to the Internet and each other. Its "connect anywhere" mobility and growing community acceptance makes possible new opportunities for community access and collaborative participation. Many wireless hobbyists throughout the country are slowly cobbling together local Wi-Fi "hotspots" into community networks, but their progress has been slow.
Several small cities such as Cerritos, CA and some larger cities such as Philadelphia, Atlanta, Baltimore, and New York see wireless networks as a lower-cost alternative to laying fiber-optic cable. They see the same social tenets supporting the provisioning of the power grid and television cable as also supporting the establishment of information services over wireless networks. Wireless has the capability to provide communications for government and public safety, convention centers, businesses, schools, libraries and residents. Whether established as a "free" amenity 10 or as a "pay for use" system, a wireless network is seen as providing for the public good.
The signals used in Wi-Fi are limited in bandwidth and in strength. Even though the distance at which a signal can be received is usually only a few city blocks, there may be several access points in an area competing for the same bandwidth. This means that Wi-Fi is not only a shared resource in the community but also a limited one. Granting an industry partner the right to build a network covering an entire city would essentially be the granting of a monopoly. These the same constraints under which television cable systems were introduced in the late '60s and early '70s and which led directly to the establishment of cable access services.
Wireless networks and cable television networks share another similarity. They are both limited geographically. It is often forgotten that Wi-Fi is a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) technology. This is very similar to the LAN you might have in your office for the sharing of printers, servers and to keep PCs protected behind a corporate firewall. And just like the office LAN, the WLAN can be configured to allow access to the Internet. This provides the possibility of limiting access to community-centered programming, yet also providing access to the Web when desired. The ability to limit your audience geographically when you so choose and yet open it to a worldwide audience when you so choose is powerful. In an update of the adage, "Think globally, act locally", producers of digital community access programming can choose to "Think globally, access locally".
What is a Digital Watershed?
John Wesley Powell, scientist geographer, said that a watershed is: "... that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community." A digital watershed is the equivalent of a natural watershed in its common linkage of all people into a community ... albeit connected digitally.
In 2003 the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB) began consideration of a citywide wireless network with access points throughout the extensive park system in the city. Access points would be seeded throughout the community like so many "digital springs" with data flowing to and from community members. Apropos in a city nationally acclaimed for its park lands following miles of springs, creeks, lake shores, wetlands and river front. Like the natural watershed, the wireless spectrum in the city is a commonly shared yet limited resource. Accordingly, the city sought stewardship of this valuable resource.
On January 16, 2004 the Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution that Business Information Services (BIS) shall be the central organization responsible for all activities related to the development and deployment of a comprehensive city government-wide wireless strategy and infrastructure that integrates with the city's IT, telephony (including cell phones), radio and data communications environments. BIS was charged with defining specific wireless requirements to accommodate city department and business community needs and to negotiate shared ownership with the MPRB. On November 12, 2004 the City Council approved a measure granting authority to BIS to publish an RFP (Request for Proposal) for WISPs (Wireless Internet Service Providers).
In January of 2004 the non-profit "Digital Watershed" was founded to provide templates and tools to community members for the creation of community-centered projects and creative programs. Digital Watershed is similar in philosophy to cable access television, yet focused upon digital community access. It is not an Internet service provider nor does it seek to create physical networks. Support services include:
- Advise new media content producers in digital production processes
- Mentor producers on interactive opportunities inherent in the medium
- Mentor the development of content reflecting the local diversity and accessibility challenges
- Assist content creators navigate technical barriers
- Advise other community organizations on producing collaborative online experiences
- Coordinate accessibility outreach programs for the network
- Provide server space installed with collaborative software
- Provide server space for archiving creative programs
- Work with local new media program efforts from existing non-profits such as the University
of Minnesota's Department of Art, Institute for New Media Studies, InterMedia Arts, and the Minnesota TV and Film Board.
Services Not Offered -
Digital Watershed should not be seen as a Web site address or a Web-based "portal" for community resources. It's primary use is for discourse within a community network, not as an informational Web site. Services currently offered on the Web to citizens of Minneapolis will not be offered by Digital Watershed. These include informational resources and forums provided by the following Web sites (and more):
Minneapolis City services provided by http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/
Minneapolis Public Schools: http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/
Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board http://www.minneapolisparks.org/home.asp
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority: http://www.mphaonline.org/
Minneapolis Community Development Agency: http://www.mcda.org/
Metropolitan Airports Commission: http://www.mspairport.com/mac/
Minneapolis Public Library Board: http://www.mplib.org/board_admin.asp
Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program: http://www.nrp.org/
Minneapolis Commuter Connection: http://www.mplstmo.org
Minneapolis Telecommunications Network: http://www.mtn.org/
Minnesota Dept. of Transportation: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
Minnesota E-democracy Project: http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls/
MPR Forum: http://forum.mpr.org/
Twin Cities Forum: http://forums.prospero.com/kr-tcitiesnews/start
Star Tribune Forum: http://online.startribune.com/forum/
Twin Cities Free-Net: http://freenet.msp.mn.us/conf/list.html
Areas of Production
In addition to collaborative software templates for community projects, Digital Watershed will be encouraging content creation in the following areas of creative program offerings:
Performance Media -
Performance has always played a prominent part of Minneapolis' cultural fabric. Collaborate software extends that capability. Participants may sample a live music performance, modify it, then play it back as a duet with the musician during the performance. Or, during a stage play amateur videographers and photographers may upload video clips and photos in real time to a stage manager who selectively projects them as part of a stage play's background montage. Interactive dramas and storytelling where the remote participants become part of the play are also possible.
Citizen Journalism -
This includes new models of reporting and journalism typified by Mobile Web Logging (Moblogs) and explanatory "interactives" such as viewed on CNN.com. Wireless technologies provide additional opportunities, such as video blogs using Wi-Fi-ready video cameras and role-playing or scenario interactions using video game engines. For example, a blogger may feed live video to a weblog while community members simultaneously upload personal photographs, interviews and data adding to the depth of the report.
E-learning -
In this context, e-learning covers the presentation of non-curricular educational games and simulations. Minneapolis has a rich history of educational software firms who have produced many fine examples developed for both CD-ROM and the Web. Versions of those software titles may be made available to network users. There is also the opportunity to coordinate non-curricular content efforts with the Minnesota State Digital Learning Plan. MSDLP is a technology group dedicated to "the technologies that will meet the necessary learning goals, efficiently serve educators' and learners' needs, and ensure accountability" for the state's K-12 students.
Games -
Games and simulations are an important part of digital learning. They run the gamut from fanciful video games to interactive communities like the SIMs. Modeling the social and civic dynamics of the real world is of particular interest. Participants could model and simulate local community issues as if they were navigating a version of the "SIMS" video game but using real governmental information, real settings and real issues. They could also do so networked to other players in real time. Simulations can be informational, such as emulating the process of passing legislative bills or participating in political caucuses. Beth Noveck, a professor of law at New York Law School stated that, "My supposition is that virtual worlds are going to be the best training ground for teaching the practices of democracy ... they offer a playground for complex social interactions and collaborative decision making, according to a set of rules defined by the game space" 11 . With a mobile network, games need not confine the user to the home. They can lead a player through the corridors of city hall to see where and how a permit is obtained, or guide and educate players in the outdoors while learning about the flora and fauna of the parks system.
Producers of content may also blend the above offerings into hybrid productions because no one knows which formula may be most effective for communicating to a particular audience. For example, we may find students producing a live Earth-Day performance on the environment including a live day-long blog on the topic. They may ask lakeside residents to take a short online e-learning course about biology surveys, then submit shoreline zebra mussel counts to a school server. Or they may ask non-lakeside residents to play a 3D a game simulation pitting water temperature versus Asian Carp migration.
Design Review for Public Spaces -
Minneapolis is a leader in innovative architecture for public facilities. Recent examples have included the Sears building renovation, the downtown public library, and LRT (light rail transit) stations along the Hiawatha corridor into downtown. Other projects have ranged from small scale architecture such as benches and bus stops on the Nicollet Mall to large scale architectural artifices such as recent submissions for baseball stadium designs. Providing venues for public commentary on such designs is essential to good stewardship of the city. However, 2D renderings of proposals aren't always accurately interpreted by the public. To assist visualization, architectural firms are increasingly using animated walk-throughs or fly-throughs as visual tools. But these animations travel along a predetermined "path" that also limits viewpoint.
Digital Watershed proposes the added use of 3D game engines to allow the public to freely navigate proposed architectural spaces. Such engines give nearly unlimited viewpoint to the user and are able to incorporate adjacent building facades and landscapes into the virtual space. The computer does the work of projecting the design into the space from any angle and viewpoint as it depicts context, construction and material textures. Some "open source" game engines are available to download and use for free. They run on modestly priced PCs and will even work on many laptops. So one could even visit the architectural site in person and, using a Wi-Fi enabled laptop, download and move through the design virtually.
Since many architectural firms already render their designs in 3D they need only import the data and textures into the game editor to enable viewing. The public will be unable to modify the designs. The incentive for the architects would be that the public will have a better understanding of their designs and therefore give a more informed consent.
Community Alert Notices -
In addition to the above service areas of content, Digital Watershed cuold also make possible the promulgation of Community Alert Notices. Community Alert Notices are infrequent but are important, especially to people who may be on the city-wide network and without access to radio or telephone. Notices may include:
- Emergency weather alerts capable of sending maps, text, video, audio
- Emergency environmental hazard alerts for beach closings, derailments, etc.
- Amber Alerts
_____________
1 Gillespie, Gilbert. Public Access Cable Television in the United States and Canada. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975 (pgs 35-36)
2 http://www.geocities.com/iconostar/history-public-access-TV.html
3 Minnesota Statutes 2003, Chapter 238, Cable Communications.
4 Nielsen/Net Ratings Enumeration Study, February 2004
5 Digital Entertainment Group
6 Getting Serious Online, March 3, 2002, Pew Internet & American Life Project (www.pewinternet.org)
7 "Content Creation Online", by Amada Lenhart 2/29/04
Pew Internet & American Life Project (www.pewinternet.org)
8 http://etvcookbook.org/extra/saf.html
9 "Internetworking", by Michael Fitzgerald, Technology Review, April 2004.
10 "Who Pays for Wireless Cities", http://www.technologyreview.com
11 http://www.wired.com/news/games0,2101,61188,00.html
© 2004 Gregory Daigle
|
|
