Is this a full- or part-time role?

cheers
John

http://www.montagecomms.com/newsletters/html_0034.html

Matt

I am totally amazed, how the "canonized" e-participation research and science is putting a huge amount of effort to the tEchnological side of e-participation, and lacking the direct and fruitful contacts with those, who could be the fire and soul of e-participation, and working on the lower end of the issue.
I think, this is showing the model of power, culture and the classical characteristics of language inclusion, created by science…"some Demo-net experts could prove this fact, when they try to make community development NGO's involve in e-participation project (right now with the 3rd sector kickoff meeting tomorrow in Prague) they might not even got answers, because the e-participation speaking an artificial language!"
It can not be questioned, that the sucess of e-participation is based on participation of the people, which is traditionally helped by community developers and workers, realizing the power and responsibility of citizenship..
In this case, it is not the proper task (from my opinion), or not the forward looking effective solution to support the spread of e-part. by networks of excellence and similar old-fashioned institutions from European money, if it is not binded together with the massive involvement of third sector.
By the way, as I see ICELE, it is some kind of institution, which is binded into technologies one way (not as eduaction in England, by the adoption of open standards) and providing valuable knowledge services on various levels (but only in English). I can not add anything other to the financial effectivnes. I just see it old fashioned at the networking age..

This could get interesting …

How about if you’re happy with 10Mb access, and the person down the road wants 50Mb. Do you both pay the same 140? So, we all pay and share, aggregate, if you eat more than me, no big deal I’ll support you….sweet thought but somehow I doubt that very much. Or does the 140 cover basic service only..which would be up to who to decide?

Monopolies haven’t worked in the past, hence deregulation, privatizations etc.. why would it now? Just because the business model or application of a private rail network is flawed does not mean that the concept, theory behind it is as well. We just need to find a better, more sustainable way to deliver it. Think laterally..

Same way with the Internet, the way we (service providers) currently price it / sell it / support it / is not working to the benefit of the entire ‘community’, only our share holders. Hence, myKP and Connecting Bristol offer a ‘community focused’ offer, not share holder, which may or may not be as high speed or offer the same level of service but it’s a starting point for bigger and better things and is better than nothing at all.

“Yes. But only in the sense that it's a monopoly anyway”

I am not certain of your regulatory environment, but I assume it would be very similar to ours.

Here in OZ, , you can pick who delivers the service on the copper cable coming into your house, you can port from one service provider to the other. I am sure it’s the same in the UK. There is a minimum, regulated charge other service providers have to pay the incumbent for maintaining and operating it, but that charge is the same for all providers (a set fee). So technically , in Oz anyway, any service provider can deliver services to your house on the cable.

“You said above it's about the people didn't you?”

Yes, it’s about people.. but also open, unfiltered access to it.

Will BBC block all Peer-to-Peer traffic, will it block all child pornography, or other potentially offensive material. Will it also have a guaranteed Service Level Agreement with ubiquitous access for every home in the country? , With a penalty like you get your 140 back if they don’t meet their KPIs? Will it always deliver the best available service and technology? How about, when you can upgrade the cable to 1Gb at home, do we automatically get it? Or does your 140, become 1400?

Privatisation and deregulations has done 2 things we all agree on, dropped the cost of access and increased competition ( I used to pay $2 a minute under the previous monopoly to call the UK, now it’s 2 cents) I don’t want to go back to paying $2.

“It's the way of business that if you provide a high-cost, underinvested technically inferior service sooner or later you'll get superseded. Although in terms of jobs, you'll probably find staff will move to the new provider and it'll only be the businesses themselves that suffer.”

Your first sentence is spoken like a true supporter of capitalism and open, competitive environments. Everything a monopoly is not..

Your second sentence, why would they have to hire them? They are a monopoly there is no other service provider to go to , and as per your first sentence “ under invested technically inferior service sooner or later you’ll get superseded ” by who, if it’s a monopoly? Or would you.. privatize it again, deregulate so there are no monopolies?

By the way, who owns BBC? What is the return on investment for the shareholders? Do they make a profit or not.. how much profit, who determines that?

Yes, Branson and business look after themselves. That’s nothing to be ashamed of.. its good business.

There are ways to replace the copper at your home with something better, or use it smarter, maybe, Ethernet over copper.. up to 40Mb symmetrical services available now. Service providers do it here in Oz now, the problem is it would cost a bomb (they like ripping us of)

How about, fibre to your home, Japan does it, South Koreans do it.. Maybe check with the Bristol Council, do they mandate that any new house builds,developments , estates etc includes fibre installed to each dwelling?

TBH, the point I am trying to make is, its fantastic to be having these debates. What is shows, is that there is no silver bullet, not all models will work for everyone. Community wi-fi style projects have a part to play in the overall picture and a role in introducing the Internet, and applications to those that otherwise may have founded to difficult to access. It’s also a tremendous way for bringing people from different communities together, a grea way to get people outdoors even. How great would it be if your Connecting Bristol account also got you access on myKP when you pay a visit to Oz?

Stay positive, solutions are coming (soon) but most likely from nowhere expect it..

Ok, Bristol Blogger are you saying, if everyone paid £140 a year that would then fix all the rail network problems, and then £140 for roads, £140 for buses etc.. or is one more important than the other so should cost more. Why stop there? How about public education, hospitals, health clinics, dental care…? Would this be before or after you pay your personal income tax?

I'm not clear about the point you're making here. I'm just saying that the business model - if you can call it that - for the BBC, could just as well be applied to building broadband infrastructure and might prove a better investment. If it works for creating television content why would it not work for infrastructure?

Who get's paid to manage it, upgrade it, protect it, who's liable for it, which (IP provider are you going to use to provide the Layer 3 Internet component, BT, France Telecom, AT&T), which access provider is going to operate the access network (the one to your home), the backhaul?

The BBC.

Will that mean who ever that is will have a monopoly on Internet access

Yes. But only in the sense that it's a monopoly anyway. There's only one cable going into my house now (owned by Virgin I think), they'll still only be one cable going into my house (owned by the BBC). What's the difference?

pretty much contradict what the Internet is

If you consider the internet to be a collection of bits of wire. You said above it's about the people didn't you?

What happens to the people working in jobs at carriers or service providers that are not chosen to deliver the £140 a year service?

It's the way of business that if you provide a high-cost, underinvested technically inferior service sooner or later you'll get superseded. Although in terms of jobs, you'll probably find staff will move to the new provider and it'll only be the businesses themselves that suffer.

The problem is you can't think of Internet access the same way you think to running roads, trains and other similar types of infrastructure.

Any reason why not?

On the web, content is king, and applications are queen

Yes and on the roads the highway code is king and the cars are queen. What's does this metaphor actually mean?

Definitely, Branson and Virgin could run the roads better

TBH, this statement is borderline bonkers. Branson can't run and invest properly in a railway line up the west coast of England even with huge public subsidy. The argument that he could run the roads better is reality-defying madness

Hence, why Branson and Virgin aren’t doing it in the first place, they stick to stuff that is alot easier.

Not investing long term and creaming profit is indeed easy. But who and how are you going to replace the copper wires that deliver my high-cost, slow-speed broadband. Or will I have to pay that myself or lump it? Is that really what passes for a long-term economic strategy now?

Community Wi-Fi access networks, built for specific purposes, produces speific results that normally 'profit driven' infrastructure entities will not commit to

Can these deliver faster and more consistent speeds than my current crappy 10mb broadband from Virgin?

£140 a year (through the license fee) is.

Ok then.

Who get's paid to manage it, upgrade it, protect it, who's liable for it, which (IP provider are you going to use to provide the Layer 3 Internet component, BT, France Telecom, AT&T), which access provider is going to operate the access network (the one to your home), the backhaul? Will that mean who ever that is will have a monopoly on Internet access and pretty much contradict what the Internet is? What happens to the people working in jobs at carriers or service providers that are not chosen to deliver the £140 a year service?

The problem is you can't think of Internet access the same way you think to running roads, trains and other similar types of infrastructure. On the web, content is king, and applications are queen. Definitely, Branson and Virgin could run the roads better, the issue is 'we' society is not prepared to pay the cost of running it better (or can't afford it ). You can have better trains, on time, clean, new, with spas and pubs in them if you want as well.. but that all comes at a cost most commuters are not prepared to pay. Managing such enormous infrastructure at a cost of sale point, that it actually gets utilised, is a fine balancing act that no matter who runs it will have issues. Hence, why Branson and Virgin aren’t doing it in the first place, they stick to stuff that is a lot easier.

Community Wi-Fi access networks, built for specific purposes, produces speific results that normally 'profit driven' infrastructure entities will not commit to, as they shouldn't, their priority should be their share holders.

Beyond the license fee, if you want one, a freeview box is £20. Providers are offering broadband free with BT line rental. In less than ten years, mobile phones have become ubiquitous and one of the best ways to reach those who are otherwise excluded.

Yes but this all comes at a high cost. In our household broadband, landline phone, mobile phones, TV license and cable TV is accounting for 7-8% of our disposable household income at present. Then, of course, there's the hardware costs. We're not the poorest of households in Bristol either. To give some perspective: fuel poverty is defined as having to spend 10% or more of your disposable income on fuel. Modern communications come at a price.

It's hard to argue that the market isn't working here, let alone suggest that a government-backed national monopoly would do better (as anyone who has ever had to deal with France Telecom could tell you).

You can't have it both ways. If we're talking about "digital exclusion" then clearly the market isn't a complete answer is it?

France Telecom may well be an example of a poor government-backed national monopoly; conversely the BBC is a reasonably good one. Government backed business doesn't have to be bad, that's just a pro-market conceit not backed up by any evidence. Indeed when it comes to creating and running large scale infrastructure, the state is probably the only body capable of delivering. Does anyone think that Branson and Virgin could run our road network? Or have a look at the state of the UK's private rail network if you want to see poor private monopoly provision and market failure. Who owns infrastructure is not that important, it's how its managed.

And if you want to stop funding the BBC, then you've created a media landscape that looks like the US. That doesn't feel like a step forward either.

I never proposed we stop funding the BBC; I proposed that the money was spent differently. This is going to happen anyway, any fool can see the BBC is dying a slow death. Sky is producing better rolling news at 10% of the cost; their cable TV channels are unwatched; their local/regional output is an underfunded farce; they're spread way to thin and it can only get worse. I'm simply proposing they move funds away from content and into infrastructure, which will serve more people more effectively.

Free to air Internet is not a sustainable business model

No but paying £140 a year (through the license fee) is.