First Report: WIRELESS BROADBAND & PUBLIC NEEDS

Building Constituencies For Spectrum Policy Change First Report:

WIRELESS BROADBAND & PUBLIC NEEDS

A report from Chicago

April 24, 2006 Building Constituencies For Spectrum Policy Change First Report:Wireless Broadband & Public Needs

New America Foundation: Wireless Future Program STAKEHOLDER STRATEGY COMMITTEE

Building Constituencies For Spectrum Policy Change First Report:Wireless Broadband & Public Needs

Section I: Committee PurposeBackground page 1Committee Goals page 1Introduction to this report page 2

Section II:Why Public Telecommunications MattersConcerns of Constituencies page 3Real Stories:What Communications Technology Means On the Ground page 4A Case Study in Community Networking page 5

Section III:A Public Policy AgendaOur Demands for Spectrum/Wireless Policy page 6

Policies to EnsurePolicies to Prevent, ReversePolicies to Reflect Technical Realities

Strategic Challenges for Today's Policy fights page 7Critical Spectrum Allocation Battlefronts page 7What Gives Us Hope page 8

Section IV: Strategies for ActionMapping Allies and Opponents page 9Players and Decision-Makers: How to Move Them page 10Framing and Targets:What Message, for Whom page 11

Strategic TargetsFraming: Key ThemesMessaging Models

Section V: Resources for AdvocacyWhat's Needed for Advocacy page 12

What Committee Members NeedFunding for Our Work page 14The State of Community Media/Tech Funding

Funding SolutionsRecommendations for NAF page 14Updating the Citizen's Guide to the AirwavesPlanned and Potential New PublicationsPlanned and Potential EventsNext Committee MeetingOpportunities to Gather, Organize and Network page 17Upcoming Events

SECTION VI:AppendicesBios: Stakeholder Strategy Committee page 18Memo from NAF: Current/upcoming Policy Fights page 21

Tableof Contents

The Stakeholder Strategy Committee met on March 21-22, 2006, in Chicago, Illinois.The meeting was sponsored byNew America Foundation (NAF), hosted by CAN-TV and Homan Square Community Center, and organized by CIMA:Center for International Media Action who produced this report on behalf of NAF.

1Building Constituencies For Spectrum Policy Change First Report:Wireless Broadband & Public Needs

BACKGROUNDIn early 2006, the New America Foundation (NAF), anindependent think-tank, launched a new initiative toadvance their work on public interest spectrum policy bystrengthening their connections with—and service to—diverse public constituencies. NAF enlisted CIMA: Centerfor International Media Action to convene a group toadvise its Wireless Future Program from the perspective ofcommunities that have a vested stake in the debate, butwhose interests are not well represented by current policyand industry agendas.

CIMA consulted with many colleagues and allies whowork on issues of community media, public technologyand telecommunications on behalf of low-income, rural,immigrant, Native, disabled and other underserved peoples.We drew process recommendations from allieswho have experience building working relationshipsbetween policy think-tanks and grassroots representatives.With this support we developed a plan for a "StakeholderStrategy Committee" that would come together to sharestrategies for wireless policy and could provide guidance toNAF moving forward.

The decision was made to begin with a focus on a coreaspect of spectrum policy—the public use of wireless high-speed (broadband) internet.We assembled the firstStakeholder Strategy Committee of 12 members fromaround the US.The group began discussing the issues byphone and email and then collectively planned the firstmeeting which was held in Chicago on March 20-21, 2006,hosted in two sites by Chicago Access TV and the HomanSquare Community Center.

Committee PurposeSECTION I

COMMITTEE GOALSThe New America Foundation wants to learn more aboutthe implications and priorities of spectrum/wireless forpublic use, to be in increased dialogue with people whocan speak to the specific concerns of communities most inneed of improved communications and infrastructure.Theultimate goal of this stakeholder-engagement initiative is tohelp leverage NAF's work together with the force ofthose constituencies, and the media/technology programsthat serve them, towards successful advocacy for spectrum/wireless policy in their interest.

The Stakeholder Strategy Committee was constituted as a key strategy to:

• Guide NAF's policy initiatives to reflect the inter-ests/perspectives of a diverse range of constituencies

• Inform NAF, Committee members and other public-interest allies and stakeholder groups aboutcurrent and future issues in wireless policy and theimplications for specific communities and constituencies; support them to assert their interests in spectrum policy

• Provide stories, data and examples of actual community experiences that can be used to support and bolster public interests positions inspectrum/wireless policy advocacy

• Generate opportunities and advice to maximize theusefulness of NAF's research, analysis, publicationsand events for organizers and activists working onsimilar and related issues

• Develop mid- to long-term visions of what NAF andstakeholder allies are working towards: Based on realconstituencies and community needs and values,how do we think spectrum allocation, uses and policy frameworks can further these specific agendas?


INTRODUCTION TO THIS REPORTFor participants, this meeting was an opportunity toengage some of the key issues facing their work, in dialogue with colleagues and allies, and with a focus onhow NAF might be able to help them address some ofthose challenges.

This report draws from the discussions in Chicago as wellas a survey of Committee members prior to the meeting.It explores a central question:What sorts of policies forwireless media best serve equity and social justice andhow to build the strategies and constituencies to achievethem?

Committee members shared a sense of urgency aboutthese issues, noting that:

"Current direction of policies and regulatory are going in the wrong direction."

"[We have] a political-economic system that stiflesinnovation, works against the public good, and otherwiseleads to inefficient, ineffective, exorbitantly priced solutions."

"In terms of expansion of people's ability to use theirown airwaves, we believe the technical and economicobstacles are minor and the political obstacles aremajor."

The Chicago meeting was the first gathering of this particular group of people.While some knew each other,others knew only 1 or 2 others.They understood theyeach had different constituencies, organizational structures,political strategies and priorities. However, they recognizedthey did share some fundamental values.When asked toquickly identify three points that broadly define theirshared agenda and three points to describe the "opposition", this is what they came up with:

During the planning phase, Committee members decidedthat for this first meeting it was important to surface themajor issues for public-interest wireless policy, to touch onseveral different topics and lay the groundwork for futureconversations and initiatives.

This report attempts to capture the themes and ideasraised at the meeting as well as in the planning conversation and surveys. It is intended as a tool for NewAmerica, for the Committee members and our allies toengage deeper strategic planning on these issues.The listsand recommendations are initial and far from comprehensive, and reflect comments that have beenraised in other spaces as well.We hope advocates andorganizers working on issues of community media,technology and telecom will find this document useful inbuilding on past conversations and continuing to engagethese challenges.

Committee PurposeSECTION I

Our Agenda

s Communication for everyones Freedom to innovates Infrastructure + resources for

communities

Opposing Agenda

s Maximize profits Control/limit threatening

innovation and competitions Control the debate


CONCERNS OF CONSTITUENCIES:• Lack of broadband (high-speed) networks limits

economic development. Low-income people don'thave resources, even computers, not to mentionaccess.There's a need for ubiquitous, affordableaccess to technology and broadband networks.

• Cable/DSL doesn't come to all neighborhoods;frequent redlining excludes low-income, immigrantand rural communities.

• Many Latinos don't have home computers, or if theydo, only dial-up (low-speed) connections. Latinocommunity would benefit from community internetand community technology centers where peoplecan be trained and can access the internet.

• Technology and media infrastructure needs to beconnected to community development and Indiannation-building. Even more important is ensuring thatemerging technologies and technology policies donot erode tribal sovereignty. Native tribes believethat there are treaty obligations pertaining to spectrum just as significant as treaty obligations pertaining to water.Tribes believe that they shouldhave first right of use of all radio spectrum withintheir airspace.

• On equal footing with tribal sovereignty issues arecultural issues. Indian people want to engage technology and media in ways that strengthen Indiansocial and cultural goals rather than ways that facilitate assimilation. Indian people need ways ofmaking technology relevant; ways of connecting technology to community development; ways tomake technology meet the needs of Indian communities; ways to use technology to advance the social, cultural, civic and economic goals of Indianpeople; ways to make technology Indian.

• Technology can be a lifeline for people with disabilities, can remove barriers to employment,education, communication and social interaction, cansupport the independence of millions of children and

adults, but their needs are almost completely overlooked as products are designed, developed andbrought to market. Lack of consistent standards,operating systems, interfaces with assistive technologies, alternatives for blind users, lack ofawareness, inadequate training, and equipment costsare among the barriers that prevent the effective useof technology for this large group.

• Proprietary technologies and networks (e.g. cell-phones, software) prohibit modification of closedprotocols or outside adaptation to make them workwith assistive technologies.

• Municipalities and rural areas need better emergencyresponse networks.

• People of color are vastly underrepresented asmedia owners. Latino media needs spectrum set-asides for minority ownership.

• Grassroots and civil society groups who want toserve their communities through radio stations aremostly prevented—redlined—under the currentlicensing system.

• While unlicensed spectrum technologies are still newand more difficult to maintain, and may not yet becapable of the necessary bandwidth (both upstreamand downstream), given enough time, communitywireless could evolve into the major venue for community media.

• Proprietary technology is way too expensive—theaverage community can't afford commercial meshnode equipment. Commercial network providerswon't allow communities to build free local networks off their systems.

• Industry interests are advanced at the expense ofcommunity and local interest.A system of rents is inplace that exacts excessive profits and imposes barriers on entities that might otherwise provideservice.This extends from questions of infrastructureto media content and ownership issues.These undermine the basic principles of democracy.Thepublic is reduced to the category of consumers.

WhyPublic Telecommunications Matters

SECTION II


REAL STORIES: WHAT COMMUNICATIONSTECHNOLOGY MEANS ON THE GROUNDMeeting participants shared a few examples of howtechnology has the capacity to improve the lives oftheir constituents. Initials are included so that readerscan follow up for more specificity (see list ofCommittee participants in Appendix).

In a school for the deaf, lectures, presentations and moreare broadcast to hearing aids in classrooms (SR)

Blind people can use cell phones with GPS (global posi-tioning system) technology to get around foreign cities(SR)

VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) can provide low-costphone service via broadband (DD)

A community radio station in an urban area where thereare no low-power community station licenses available wasable to webcast over the internet—until their ISP (InternetService Provider) began cutting and interrupting theirbandwidth during their uploads. (DD)

Death by accident on indian reservations decreases dramatically when 911 services are available; competitivetelecom regulation reduced deaths by 30%.The #1 causeof death on some Navajo reservations: slow accidentresponse because no 911 service (KT)

Through a neighborhood community wireless network, aman working as a janitor at the community center startede-commerce site for local arts, music & crafts (PS)

The wireless networks set up after the Katrina/levee disaster helped survivors connect to resources, locate families, fill out FEMA forms; wireless networks set up onunlicensed frequencies provided phone service includingareas that barely had working phone lines before the hurricane. (SM) When local officials wouldn't give permission for community radio activists to set up emergency stations at the Astrodome, others who decided to operate unlicensed stations were still able to provide needed information. (DD)

In Montgomery, County, MD, there is a "wireless community bulletin board"; announcements and calendarsfor cultural events are broadcast to mobile devices in thearea (as you walk by). (TR)

Educational cable channels are used together with broadband (high-speed) networks to provide in-homeclasses to people who could not otherwise attend GED or community college classes. (TR)

Research (Rob Fairlie, UCSC) has shown that kids are 7%more likely to graduate from high school if they have bothcomputers and Internet access. (AC)

The vast majority of broadband access in Indian Country isdue to the existence of unlicensed wireless broadbandnetworks. (KT)


SECTION II


A CASE STUDY IN COMMUNITY NETWORKINGThe afternoon of our Chicago meeting was hosted by Homan Square Community Center and the Center forNeighborhood Technology, which coordinates a wireless community (mesh) network (WCN) in the NorthLawndale neighborhood. Rogers Wilson, Paul Smith and Nicol Turner-Lee gave a brief overview of the project.

Structure:• wireless mesh network provides redundant connections between buildings • nodes installed on participating neighbors' rooftops provides shared high-speed internet access• off-the-shelf equipment costs $300-$400 per node• Speakeasy provides the backhaul connectivity without stringent usage and sharing terms• funded by grants as pilot project• community members, participants are troubleshooters, maintenance and administrators

Community uses and benefits:• Online classes, distance education, technical training for jobs, improved employment options• VoIP - low-cost telephone over internet• Online businesses, e-commerce• Training in how to help maintain network gives participants marketable technical skills, competitive edge

Key messages for engaging community support• Possibilities for economic development• Getting rid of Comcast, and/or providing an affordable, reliable alternative• Protecting and addressing personal privacy issues

Impact/outcomes• Community ownership/maintenance ensures quality• Network program opened doors for people to get the technology sooner• Comcast only came into Lawndale after WCN was set up (and is still expensive)• Public sector is recognizing the community efforts and Chicago municipal government is dialoguing with WCN team

about how to incorporate models of community use, training, networking and maintenance with municipal wirelesseffort. Also how to keep the municipal effort compatible with existing community networks.

Challenges:• How to sustain network and project after grant expires• Labor costs and training have been more significant compared to equipment• Chicken-and-egg problem: community support is needed to develop and access technology, but community had to

realize the benefits of the technology first• Had to appeal to people's diverse interests; contentious planning and development process.

For more, see "Community Wireless, Finding A New Way Online," Micah Maidenberg,Third Coast Press, November 1, 2005http://www.thirdcoastpress.com/community_wireless_finding_a_new_way_online.php


SECTION II


OUR DEMANDS FOR SPECTRUM/WIRELESS POLICYA collective brainstorm of the essential componentsof policies to address constituency needs.

Policies to Ensure:P spectrum is understood as a publicly owned natural

resource; public airwaves, public rightsP networks (fixed, online and wireless) are neutral

and obligated as common carriersP media, communications tools and systems are

interoperable with assistive technologiesP local decision-making, local controlP diversity of ownership, outlets, controlP affordability of access, production, useP durable Universal Service across technical platforms P community networking, shared access P anyone can publish and distributeP technology serves community and economic

developmentP there are funds to address the digital divide: access

and also training, equipment, etc.P there are resources for content development and

distribution at the community level

Policies to Prevent, Reverse:åentrenched ownerså predatory pricingå "propertization" and ownership of spectrumå consolidation, the concept that bigger = betterå network hierarchieså discrimination of content, applications or users by

network owners and technologieså technological obsolescence of public-interest (social

benefit) policieså ISPs and commercial networks blocking non-govern-

mental/nonprofit organizations, government,community groups and individuals from making,controlling their own systems

Policies to Reflect Technical Realities:• There is no physical “spectrum”—there are only

varying permissions to speak• We need to open more of the pipe to use for

community networks• We need higher quality (longer range, more durable)

frequencies available for public uses• Only by having many possible networks can you

ensure net neutrality• We don't know what new applications can/will be

developed; policy needs to be flexible to encourageand support future public, community and social uses

• Waves don't interfere with each other - it's whetherreceivers can distinguish among them

• Emerging receiver technologies can determine whichmessages are intended for it versus other receivers -thus technology is improving how efficiently we canuse waves and how much more communication canexist

• In sum, spectrum is not a scarce resource, but itneeds to be managed more efficiently

A Public Policy Agenda

SECTION III


STRATEGIC CHALLENGESFOR TODAY'S POLICY FIGHTS

ã While we are seeking to establish public,noncommercial, individual and community rights touse spectrum, broadcasters are squatting on andusing additional frequencies — and can then arguefor existing use and incumbency rights

ã Media and telecom corporations (and policymakerssupporting them) ask for a little at a time;incremental encroachments on public and noncommercial space make it difficult to organizesignificant press and public attention and opposition

ã A Telecommunications Act rewrite may or may notsupercede the variety of legislation and FCCregulations that have been introduced or passed

ã Separate fights may prevent coalitions:When industry agendas are embedded into different billsand regulations, public interest groups and constituencies can be set against each other

CRITICAL SPECTRUMALLOCATION BATTLEFRONTSAs part of the discussion about specific wireless policy fights at the Federal level, NAF and other participants raised three areas where incumbentindustries are angling to expand or extend theirexclusive control of spectrum resources. Public-interest advocates, including NAF, are seeking toinstead win this space for increased unlicensed uses.

1) As television moves to digital broadcasting, the currently and soon-to-be empty channels from analog TV could be transferred to unlicensed, openand public uses, unless commercial broadcasters getthem instead. Broadcasters already use empty channels ("white space") for purposes such as wireless mics/cameras but want to keep out public (unlicensed) access.

Status as of March 2006:• FCC considering a rulemaking — need

letters from constituencies• Senate could order FCC to open spectrum for

unlicensed - need pressure on reps to co-sponsorand support

2) Broadcasters are pushing FCC proceedings to useadditional spectrum for expanded digital TV distribution without public compensation, and depleting spectrum that could be opened for publicaccess. Status as of March 2006:• NAF filed comments and reply comments in

March and April, now being considered at FCC

3) Telecom companies are seeking laws at the Federal,State and municipal level to ensure that private sector has first right to provide internet serviceand/or pre-empt communities, nonprofits and/orgovernments from developing their own networksand internet services. Status as of March 2006:• Competing Federal bills in development could

either ensure the rights of municipalities to develop public, noncommercial, low-cost and/orcommunity networks or could prevent municipalities and community groups from competing with commercial providers

• Telecom companies and lobbyists are working toestablish state legislation to give incumbenttelecom companies first access at providing wireless networks

See Appendix: Current and Upcoming Policy Fights formore information. For updates, and/or to collaborate onthese campaigns, contact the New America FoundationWireless Future Program.


SECTION III



SECTION III

Despite the significant challenges in shifting policy agendas to serve justice and equity, some reasons why Committee participants stillbelieve change is possible:

The Public Interest Advocacy Sector"The strength and traction of the community and municipal wireless movement.""We're working together, we're smart and we have the right values.""We understand that we need to work and mobilize communities together.""We can connect policy, technical information to knowledge from and aboutcommunities."

Potential Alliance with Computer Industries"The huge potential to help disabled people is strong motivator for companies.""Companies/industry with deep pockets, such as Intel and Microsoft, areinvolved"

Growing Public Concern and Interest"Explosion of technology in the average house; kids have an intuitive sense ofwireless, tech.""Lots of people are concerned about owning/controlling technology and communications; people feel like they've been screwed by companies and are ready to get involved"

Historical Force and Trajectory May Be on Our Side"Technological innovation has the potential to get past politics.""Things are trending in our direction - e.g., municipal wireless is spreading.""We are having an impact (otherwise all the bad policies would have passedalready)."

WHAT GIVES US HOPE:


MAPPING ALLIES AND OPPONENTSUsing an abridged version of a strategic analysis tool known as power mapping, participants began identifying thevarious groups who have a position and/or potential decision-making power over wireless, spectrum and other telecom policies. This preliminary exploration should be understood as a work-in-progress, a resource for advo-cates to adapt, revise and build on.This map represents groups identified through this initial exercise, and the participants' first pass at placing those groups on thechart. It is a composite adaptation of the two maps created at the meeting and is included here for participants and others touse as a basis for exploring the questions of allies, opponents and who has power, to begin addressing who to engage and how.

• Vertical axis = degree of power/influence in decision-making• Horizontal axis = where they currently stand on the issues• Colors =

Strategies for Action

SECTION IV

Ally/supporting groups Decision-makers Active opposition Unorganized constituencies

KEY

Mapping tool developed by Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education, SCOPE-LA, for resources and information, see: http://www.scopela.org.Thanks to Makani Themba-Nixon of The Praxis Project and other trainers for sharing and recommending this tool.

Decisivepower ofinfluence 10

8

6

4

3

2

Our Agenda Their Agenda

Active in decision-making

Majorinfluence ondecisions

Taken intoaccount

Can getattention

Not onradar

Die Hard Die HardActiveSupport

ActiveSupport

InclinedToward

InclinedToward

Hi-techcompanies

Nat’lconferenceof AmericanIndians

Progressivethink-tanks

Communitymedia, indymedia

Media &DemocracyCoalition

Alliance forCommunityMedia

NATOA(nat’l ass’nof telecomofficers andadvisors)

Standardsbodies

EntertainmentCaucus

Hispanic& BlackCaucuses

State PUCs(public utilitycommissions)

Municipalitiesmayors andcities

Departments ofPublic Works,Commerce, Transportation

RuralCaucus

Tribalgov’ts

State Legislatures

Congress

FCC

Cellularcompanies

Cablecompanies

DepartmentHomelandSecurity

Wall StreetInvestors

Conglomeratecontentcompanies

ILECs(incumbent local exchangecarriers) & Bells

NAB- Nat’lAss’n ofBroadcasters

Conservativethink-tanks

Astroturfgroups

minorities

Civil rightsgroups

NationalUrbanLeague

CTCNetcommunitytech center

AAPD-AmericanAssn of Peoplewith Disabilities

planners


PLAYERS AND DECISION-MAKERS: HOW TO MOVE THEMAfter identifying key power-brokers and potential decision-maker allies, participants began to map out what forcescould be leveraged to affect their positions on wireless/spectrum policy.Again, this is preliminary and intended as a basisfor further discussion and strategizing.Advocacy groups may want to consider what assets and strengths they couldbring to bear on these strategies and how this might influence who they target and how, and who they partner with.


SECTION IV

Players/ Decision-Makers What Will Influence/Move Them?

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)

Federal Communications Commission(FCC)

Local and State governments

Public Utility Commissions (PUCs)

Congress

Bad pressEconomic shiftsSplits/wedges? (e.g., between networks and stations)

CongressEconomic arguments from outsideCourtsMassive public comment + publicity

Visits from constituentsPress (positive and negative, public opinion)Organized constituent interest (letters, petitions, calls, visits—especially home office visits)Home state interest argumentsTechnical informationEducate staff - staff has influenceIdeology / party interestsCore interests of specific officials (e.g., campaign finance)

ããããããMOVED BY



National associations of local governments• League of Cities• NATOA (Nat.Assn of Telecom

Officers and Administrators)• US Conference of Mayors• (etc)

InformationInside alliesEconomic rationalesSocial benefit argumentsResearch showing social/civic benefits

Calls from residents, civic leadersPublic demonstrationsCommunity organizations (CBOs) showing demandPress (both negative and positive)Money, economic opportunitiesEconomic rationalesSocial benefits

State Legislatures (hard to reach)Money, economic influences





FRAMES AND TARGETS:WHAT MESSAGE, FOR WHOMRecognizing the challenge of organizing people aroundthe arcane, abstract issues of wireless technology,economics and policy, Committee members talkedabout their need for resonant frames and effectivemessages. (See below, "What's Needed forAdvocacy".) The question is not only what frame touse, but for whom—who needs to be convinced todo what— creating messages that can mobilize forcesand players. Reflecting on the actors identified in thepower map, and what it takes to move them, partici-pants began a list of strategic targets for messaging:

Strategic Targets• Volunteer/individual activists• People doing community media• Communities without services or with inadequate service• Potential allies - non-governmental groups (nonprofits,

community associations, membership groups) who arenot yet involved with these issues -the "unorganized constituencies" on the map.

• Community/local newspapers• Local governments• State legislatures• Congress• Opponents (e.g., NAB) — especially with "negative" press

Framing: Key ThemesParticipants examined some of the ads and online materi-als produced by industry lobby groups to find some of thekey frames they are using.Then they began an initial brainstorm of frames and concepts that reflect the issues,concerns and attitudes of their constituencies and communities.This list is very preliminary, and intended tospark further discussion on strategic communications.

Other Side's Themes - used in ads and other rhetoric• Fairness vs. cheating• Jobs/economic growth• Patriotism• Consumer choice / Freedom• Future

Themes We Use or Can Use• Equality - people should not be excluded• Make change• Jobs• Economics/money• Education• Access to discounts and products• Help make history• Health• Connections, Community, Overcoming Isolation• Companies should share what they get • Better opportunities for children• People want to feel like active participants in society, to

have a sense of ownership


SECTION IV

Dharma Dailey gave a presentation of her work toeducate community media activists on spectrumissues. Core elements include:

• Media and technology that anyone can use: colorfulhand-drawn posters instead of Power Point

• Simple overviews using familiar metaphors (e.g., therainbow)

• Hands on demonstrations: rubber bands to showsound waves, crystals to show spectrum

• Basic explanations of the fundamentals of the technology: receivers, transmitters, frequencies

• Humor!

The New America Foundation produces publications with some similar approaches:

• Visual metaphors for wireless communications using a concert stadium, a highway or land allocation to explain the failures and alternatives for spectrum policy

• Graphics such as charts as well as cartoons

For more about these educational efforts, contact DharmaDailey and New America.

MESSAGING MODELS


WHAT'S NEEDED FOR ADVOCACY

In the survey and at the meeting, participants wereasked what they would need to improve the effectiveness of their advocacy on wireless/spectrumissues and to increase the involvement of their constituents. Because participants are from differentorganizations, with differing strategies, skills, constituen-cies, expertise and information, the responses are notunified. Some groups need materials, others needframeworks and others need opportunities to con-nect with each other.The one consistent need wasfor funding, which is addressed below.

Funders and public-interest groups considering howto allocate resources might consider these ideas asways to support constituency-based groups to workon spectrum/wireless/telecom policy.

What Committee MembersNeedWe need to educate the public and our constituents…

"One of the key barriers is understanding the process."

"We need to educate Latinos that it is their right to haveaccess to the Internet and if its not at home then havecommunity centers that provide access. Part of it is also toeducate Latinos on the benefits of having broadband."

"There is sense of a dominant corporate/private sectorway of doing things .. government and community basedwork is undervalued and presented as illegitimate or inca-pable of supplying the need. Communities need successstories. They need confidence to go ahead from theirinterest and values. Many communities are lost and theyrely upon information from vendors and private sectorproviders. These are the same entities that left thembehind to begin with."

We need strategic information and materials...

"Resources that are part of a national campaign.Guidelines in localizing such materials."

"Knowledge building resources and educational materialsabout radio spectrum and the frequencies used for variousapplications, such as digital tv, digital radio, wireless broad-band, unlicensed wireless broadband, etc. Indian peopleneed to know more about the specific spectrum bandsthat we are chasing after and why. There is also a need forinformation resources that inform American Indian com-munities about the issues and translate what's at stake forAmerican Indian communities."

"History of the issues, current relevant pending legislation,information about who is active in this space and why."

"Ongoing input for strategic outreach.What are the impor-tant geographical areas, states, regions, cities that we shouldbe doing an educational campaign in? - Example, anti-munibills in state X and state Y.Which one is more of an organ-izing priority?"

"Research support. For example, a comprehensive docu-mentation of community wireless projects in the gulf,including evaluation of success and ongoing needs- isimportant not only for in the beltway advocacy, but alsofor our movement to understand what we did right andwhere we need improvement. Also, sustainability recipesfor community based projects. Many of the coolest proj-ects rely on grants. That makes them very vulnerable."

(or not…)

"Not materials (please, no more materials) - we alreadyknow what the problems are, but people want us to solvethem by deluging us with yet more papers."

We need new points of intervention and action…

"The need for vehicles for community engagement remainsa pressing challenge. Policy frameworks and venues sur-rounding telecom policy more generally, and wireless policymore narrowly, are out of touch with practical issues andtraditional approaches to mobilization."

Resources for Advocacy

SECTION V


We need better frameworks…

"An advocacy frame that connects spectrum and wirelesspolicy issues more concretely to a broader range of policyissues. Wireless itself has limited resonance as an equityissue or a contestable public good. There is a need, fromour vantage point, to frame wireless more concretely as abroadband infrastructure."

"Ongoing input on what are the most important aspectsof spectrum policy for a general audience to understand:What issues can we get better traction by involving thegeneral public and/or community media activists? Key issueframes."

"Need visioning analysis more than case studies of existingtech. [Policy will need to support] new applications yet tobe imagined beyond desktops + laptops + computers."

"Need to be able to connect with people's experiencethat they are being screwed—need to find that way toconnect with people."

We need to connect with each other…

"Sharing information with other media advocacy groups isessential to our success. Having a list of organizations andtheir expertise with the regions they service would also behelpful. Periodic conference calls to strategize how we canadvance community internet."

"Ongoing input for strategic alliances. (Who we should beconnecting with and how)"

"Organizers and Community Networkers need resourcesso that we can coordinate with each other and so weneed not reinvent the wheel. Spaces for regional organiz-ers to form or share strategy both through meeting andonline."

"We need to be able to find each other easily. Others inthe community are baffled by the complexity of theissues… They need a help in framing them.They need toknow they can do these things themselves and that thereare resources to help them do so… and they need thoseresources."


SECTION V

"We need dollars and organizing resources for connectingAmerican Indian constituencies to the larger public interest-movement."

We need basic resources…

"Funding. What we need is funding."

"Assistance in coordinating regional organizing. Efforts topromote coordination across what once were separate sec-tors."

"Indian people need access to resources for research, vision-ing, planning, evaluation, content production, content distri-bution and applications development. In other words, Indianpeople need access to core capacity building resources."

"A slower clock :"

"Staff"


FUNDING FOR OUR WORKDuring the planning, participants stressed that funding—especially sustainable funding—was a critical issue for discus-sion. Both funding for advocacy work, as well as sustainable models for community wireless projects. In the meeting,we discussed current ways groups are funded, some of the challenges of those models and some potential solutions.


SECTION V

Federal Grants - TOP Grants (Technology Opportunities Program)•TOP grant programs have ended and have not been replaced• Lots of red tape and bureaucracy• Advocacy deterred or not permitted

State Depts. Of Commerce Funding• Advocacy deterred or not permitted

City grants• Limited, short-term

Industry and Corporate Partners• How to structure to avoid co-option • Advocacy deterred or not permitted

Industry payment for use of rights of way• Under policy threat right now

Private foundations• Fewer, bigger, consolidated • Clique behavior, elite focus and access• Force inherent competition between like-minded groups• Influence the work•Top-down• Technology clueless• Funds under threat (eg from government and corporate pressures)

Service + user fees, membershipCommunity donationsVolunteer / sweat equity

• Takes capacity and skill to organize

The State of Community Media & Technology Funding/Resources Now

DRAWBACKSããããããã







}Potential to supportadvocacy



SECTION V

P

Diversify revenue sources

P

Offer a scaled service to reduce costs: provide services & get feesProvide services to specific constituenciesScaled fees for NGOs/CBOsLook for services that can become a business,( e.g., Southern California Digital Village opened a digital printing business with equipment granted by HP)

P

Transfer costs to city after useful service provided

P

Build large membership w/diverse projectsConnect projects to each otherCreate collaborations, composite larger initiatives

P

Endowments

P

Franchise fees allocated for community technology funds

P

Taxes + fees from industry

P

Corporate / industry partners + donations of tech/services

P

Organize/advocate together to shift foundation practices

P

Advocate at the Federal level for allocations of funds and new programs

FUNDING SOLUTIONS


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NAFThe New America Foundation is seeking advisoryinput for the publications, events and other activitiesthey have planned or proposed for 2006.This list is asummary of some of the various projects under con-sideration and some initial recommendations fromthe Stakeholder Strategy Committee.The NewAmerica Foundation invites more feedback, inquiriesand potential partners and collaborators for theseefforts. Please contact them if you have additional rec-ommendations, ideas for partnerships, potential usesfor these materials and events.

Updating the Citizen's Guideto the AirwavesWhat do people want to see in an updated citizen's guideto make it a more valuable resource? Is it too dense, toofocused on certain aspects of the spectrum debate at theexpense of others, etc.?

Recommendations:• It's too much - break up content to make less intimi-

dating • Re-design to be used in pieces• Produce a "lite" version that would also be less

expensive to distribute widely• Multimedia version? Would be cheaper, easier to dis-

tribute. (Work with PEG stations?)• Pair with an educators' guide that explains how it's

been used in the past and how it can be • Produce versions in other languages• Don't try to educate directly to constituencies, but

support allies to educate their constituencies, ideallywith funds

• Support independent/community media groups toadapt citizen/cartoon guides

• Have a contest in different constituency groups forbest adaptation - this creates a new expert on thetopic who is closer to the community

• "Citizen's Guide" and "radio revolution" are bothgreat resources. Native organizations/tribes wouldgreatly benefit from the "citizen's guide"

Planned and Potential New Publications

– Municipal/Community Wireless Profiles – Study on Social & Economic Benefits of

Community/Muni Wireless– Economic Models of Municipal Wireless– Technical Study - Increasing capacity of

Community/Muni Wireless networks– Wireless Network Neutrality: Policy

Challenges and Opportunities Report– Exposé on Broadcaster Public Interest

Obligations

Recommendations • Research who else might have produced similar

reports already; reference/build on thoseo OneEconomy has already done a report/study

on community/muni wireless models• Show intersections between technical infrastructure,

local economy and workforce impact • Include Indians, Latinos• Amplify alternative models, structures, technologies• Don't just focus on corporate muni-wireless models

(e.g., Civitium)• Need good practical plans that CBO's can bring to

policymakers, for advocacy and planning• Ground the community wireless reports in the

principles of public infrastructure, access, etc.• Make the case why communities would want (wire-

less networks, broadband, telecom, etc.)• Emphasize savings to city• Don't only focus on WiFi: compare with other exist-

ing and emerging technologies• Educate city information officers (CIOs) on other

available/emerging technologies


SECTION V


Planned and Potential Events:– DC Forums on White Space– Spectrum 101 Workshop– Community/Municipal Wireless DC

Policy SummitRecommendations:• Consider the audience carefully and structure

accordingly• Bring in local activists and on-the-ground workers• Fund video productions by/about actual projects,

showcase at events• Host events in (Congressional) home districts where

there are active projects - focus on the districts ofkey committee members

• Invite the Stakeholder Strategy Committee membersand other outside-the-Beltway allies

• Good to combine DC events with organized Hill visits• Organize funder forums/briefings featuring

representatives from CBOs, constituency associations

Next Meeting of theStakeholder StrategyCommittee:Recommendations:• Conference call after this report to discuss specific &

additional recommendations for NAF • Should plan for another in-person meeting, possibly

over 2 days with more open time• Don't try to force collective strategy work. Don't

need to seek consensus.• Do focus on surfacing knowledge needs• Meeting agenda should be strategic for all• Need to get clear on what NAF wants/needs from

group + what influence Committee has• Need to get clear on the strategic timing for making

things happen• Provide opportunities to discuss/support collabora-

tive grant writing• More time -- need to include open space, i.e. not just

NAF agenda


SECTION V

• More focus on specific issues and specific solutions• More depth, more focus on funding and action orien-

tation• Bring in more direct stakeholders

OPPORTUNITIES TO GATHER,ORGANIZE AND NETWORKA key recommended strategy for building relationshipsand learning how to serve and mobilize constituencieswas to connect with existing relevant events.The following list includes some of the upcoming eventswhere New America Foundation's Wireless FutureProgram, the members of the Stakeholder StrategyCommittee and other allies might seek to attend,provide materials, and host workshops, dialogues andstrategy meetings.

Upcoming Events• Building the Broadband Economy - June 2006, New

York City• Prometheus Barnraising - Summer 2006, Oregon• Alliance for Community Media conference - July

2006, Boston• National Council of La Raza - July 2006, Los Angeles• Community Technology Conference (CTCNet) - July

2006,Washington, DC• Regional FCC hearing in Chicago - July 2006• Minority Media Telecommunications Council Access

to Capital Conference, July 2006, D.C.• OneWebDay - Sept 22, 2006, Online• Rural Telecommunications Congress (RuralTelCon) -

October 2006, Little Rock,Arkansas• National Conference on Media Reform - January

2007, Memphis• South by Southwest Interactive SXSW, March 2007,

Austin o (Sharron Rush will invite ideas)


Amalia AndersonLeague of Rural VotersAmalia is Director of Political Education and Action for theLeague of Rural Voters. She is a community organizer,cultural activist, media justice advocate and co-founder ofFourth World Rising, and believes communication is a fundamental right to be promoted and protected.

Richard ChabránCalifornia Community Technology Policy GroupRichard Chabran serves as chair of the CaliforniaCommunity Technology Policy Group (CCTPG). In thiscapacity, he has met with the California Legislative InternetCaucus and presented testimony to various legislativecommittees in an effort to define the issues surroundingthe impact of the digital divide and suggest solutions. Hemade a presentation on the digital divide beforeCalifornia's Commission on Building for the 21st Centuryand contributed to their report entitled “Invest forCalifornia - Strategic Planning for California's FutureProsperity and Quality of Life”. In 1995, Chabran servedon the California Senate Bill 600 Task Force onTelecommunications Network Infrastructure. This taskforce explored ways for schools, public libraries, and com-munity centers to gain access to the new informationtechnologies. CCTPG has supported several pieces of leg-islation in California that support community technologyprograms and universal service programs. In addition,Chabran participated in several California Public UtilitiesCommission proceedings including the Full Panel Meetingon Broadband Deployment in California. He also has pro-vided expert testimony in the Commission's recenttelecommunications merger proceedings.Constituency:The California Community Technology PolicyGroup (CCTPG) is a vibrant and effective statewide network oforganizations and individuals. CCTPG's goal is to advocate forpolicies that assure underserved communities reap the eco-nomic, educational, health, and civic benefits offered by newdigital innovations. CCTPG members work to address the lackof state support for community technology, to educate policy-makers about the realities of technology usage, and to engagecommunity leaders in the advocacy process.

Arnold ChandlerPolicyLinkArnold L. Chandler, Program Associate, analyzes andresearches information technology and community buildingissues for the Community Building in the Digital Age initiative at PolicyLink. Chandler holds an M.S. inInformation and Telecom Systems Design, and hasresearched and written on topics related to informationtechnology, organizations, the digital divide and public policy.Along with data analysis and research,Arnold conductsstudies into the innovative application of information technology and data to community-building and advocacy.Specifically, his research focuses on the digital divide andpublic policy, supporting technology innovation in the nonprofit sector, electronic advocacy, and the use of geographic information systems (GIS) for policy change.Constituency: PolicyLink's constituency are low-income communities and communities of color, although the breadthof our work encompasses policy areas and issues that affectcommunities across metropolitan areas. We are particularlyconcerned with the racial and economic digital divide as wellas the “organizational divide” that impacts the community-based organizations that serve low-income communities.

Dharma DaileyPrometheus Radio ProjectPrometheus Radio Project's Spectrum Mama. In the mid1990s, Dharma Dailey learned about an LPFM pirate radiostation that broadcast out of a housing project in Illinois.Asa teen mom who grew up in low income housing projects,she immediately recognized the potential of LPFM andwondered why something that was so good for communi-ty building was illegal for those who could use it most.Airwave access for everyone is still her dream.

Believed to be the only person to have attended bothStarr Beauty Academy and the University of Chicago,some other things I've done: Managed an independentbookstore.A core organizer for CounterMedia, the inde-pendent media activist project taking place during the1996 Democratic Convention in Chicago.Trained in TVproduction at Chicago Cable Access, produced 28 weeksof a revolutionary call-in show (revolution was the topic)and a commercial for a local non-profit.Very occasionally, Iwhip out my tape recorder and hit the street. I've beenlucky enough to have radio pieces that I've recorded

Bios: Stakeholder Strategy Committee

SECTION VI

APPENDICES


and/or edited played nationally and internationally.Sometimes I'll break out my guitar and sing, especially tobenefit a group like the Traverse City Anti-Racist Coalitionor a domestic violence shelter.When my head isn't up inthe airwaves, I'm working with the local school nurse todevelop a free community based health and fitness pro-gram for our rural mountaintop village.Constituency: Prometheus is a resource center for grassrootsgroups who want or have community radio stations, offeringlegal, technical, and organizational support for non-commercialcommunity broad-casters. We work with community basedgroups on a peer to peer basis- we experts on communityradio, they experts on their community needs, desires, andresources.

Inez GonzálezNational Hispanic Media CoalitionInez González is the Director of Media Policy for theNational Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) a non-profitadvocacy organization whose mission is to open the doorfor Latinos in all areas of the media and protect the Latinoimage as portrayed by the media. In her capacity asDirector of Media Policy, Inez is responsible for developingpolicy and analyzing proposed legislation and regulations toincrease Latino participation in the media. She is the orga-nization's contact person for national, state and local elect-ed officials. Previous to joining NHMC, Inez was theDistrict Director for Congressman Bob Filner (D-51) over-seeing the management and operations of two districtoffices that served over 650,000 constituents. Inez' profes-sional experience is varied and extense including tenuresas Public Relations & Communications Manager for aCalifornia Health Management Organization (HMO);Financial Analyst for a defense contractor; and ContractCompliance Officer for the public transportation agency inSan Diego, CA. Inez is active in the Latino community, cur-rently participating in the Hispanas Organized for PoliticalEquality (HOPE) Leadership Training Institute. She hasserved as Board Member of San Diego MANA in severalcapacities, including serving as Vice President of Operations.Inez was born in Tijuana, B.C. Mexico.Constituency: Our constituency is the Latino community and ingeneral people of color that have historically not have equity inaccess to affordable broadband. NHMC advocates for mediapolicy issues that impact Latinos in a positive manner andopposes policies that would be detrimental to Latinos. Werepresent individuals, organizations and private interest (e.g.Latino television networks).

Michael MarandaAssociation for Community NetworkingMichael Maranda is based in Chicago and is the Presidentof the Association for Community Networking, Director ofCTCNet Chicago as well as Co-Chair of the IllinoisCommunity Technology Coalition.Constituency: From AFCN point of view, we promote communi-ty networking in all forms, as process and radical practice.From ilCTC, we promote digital literacy, access & equity. Inboth cases I see no limits in potential constituency, but in prac-tice it is community minded technologists and the communitiesthey serve.

Sascha MeinrathCUWiN, CTCNetSascha Meinrath is a well-known expert on CommunityWireless Networks (CWNs) and Municipal Broadband.Sascha is the co-founder and Project Coordinator of theChampaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network(CUWiN), one of the world's leading open-source, ad-hocmesh network research and development projects. In2005, Sascha was elected to the Board of Directors ofCTCNet, a US-based network of more than 1000 organi-zations united in their commitment to improve the educa-tional, economic, cultural and political life of their communi-ties through technology. Over the years, he has worked asa project manager for several software development com-panies. Sascha is a spectrum policy analyst for Free Press, aWashington, DC-based think-tank, and regularly briefsFederal Communications Commission and Congressionalstaff on issues related to CWNs.Constituency: I work with hackers, industry folks, consultants,policy people, Indymedia and other radical media activists,municipalities, NGOs, etc. It's a pretty broad swath of people.

Tony RiddleAlliance for Community MediaFor more than 25 years Riddle has worked in the manyforms of media for the purpose of effecting positive socialchange. For the past 22 years, he has concentrated hisefforts in the emerging field of community media. Riddle'swork has been on all levels, from technician to policy-maker, from producer to political advocate, from communi-ty-based teacher to international representative, including:Press Secretary, Speech Writer for Atlanta Mayor MaynardJackson.; National Chair,Alliance for Community Media;


SECTION VI

APPENDICES


Executive Director,Alliance for Community Media;Executive Director of Manhattan Neighborhood Network.Started the first nationwide Youth Channel.; ExecutiveDirector of Minneapolis Telecommunications Network.;Presenter to conferences and commissions in EasternEurope, North Africa, the Caribbean and throughoutNorth America for the purpose of sharing information oncommunity media; Member, President Carter'sCommission on Radio and Television Autonomy in theFormer Soviet States; Program Consultant, Media JusticeFund of The Funding Exchange.

Sharron RushKnowbilitySharron Rush is the co-founder and Executive Director ofKnowbility, a nonprofit organization with the mission ofassuring access to technology for children and adults withdisabilities. She organized the first Accessibility InternetRally (AIR) Austin in 1998 and has led the effort to replicate the AIR program in cities throughout the country.Because of AIR, hundreds of professional Web developersunderstand the benefits, tools, and techniques of accessibleWeb design and have created accessible sites for morethan 300 nonprofits. Other Knowbility programs helpschools, businesses and government agencies understandhow to make educational, employment and consumeropportunities available to the large and growing market ofpeople with disabilities.Sharron believes strongly in the power of technology tosupport the independence of people with disabilities - andin the value of dynamic, ongoing collaboration to strength-en communities. She has led Knowbility to national recog-nition, including appearances on the Oprah Winfrey TVshow, "Best Practice" feature at the National Labor SkillsSummit, and recognition for excellence and innovation bythe Peter F. Drucker Foundation and the CongressionalBlack Caucus. She is a frequent presenter at national disability and technology conferences, has been named oneof the Top 25 Women of the Web and received theDewey Winburne Award for Community Service throughInteractive Media. Her book, Maximum Accessibility, cowrittenwith John Slatin was published by Addison Wesley.Constituency: Children and adults with disabilities - includingvisual, hearing, motor and cognitive impairments.

Paul SmithCenter for Neighborhood TechnologyPaul Smith is Manager of Wireless Community Networks,WCN, a project of the Center for NeighborhoodTechnology.WCN is one of the leading community wireless networking efforts in the country.To date, over150 families in the Chicago neighborhoods of Pilsen andNorth Lawndale have been connected to this innovativemesh network that is built around close community partic-ipation, from planning to deployment to operations.A piloteconomic development program, the WCN addresses thedigital divide by linking underserved communities with thejob training, literacy building, educational, and intra-commu-nity media resources that broadband communicationsuniquely provide.A student physics and philosophy at St.Mary's College of Maryland, Paul has been with theCenter since 1999.

Nicol Turner-LeeOneEconomy, Neighborhood Technology Resource CenterNicol manages One Economy's Midwest programs,including the growth and development of Beehive Webproperties. She has over 10 years of experience working inthe areas of local asset mapping, resource mobilization,community organizing, community technology, and organizational development in New York , Illinois , Michiganand Georgia. Prior to joining One Economy, Nicol foundedthe Neighborhood Technology Resource Center (NTRC),a non-profit organization that provides technology trainingand Internet access to low-income residents in twoChicago neighborhoods. NTRC has been recognized as aleading community technology center by HUD's ChicagoNeighborhood Networks program and as one of 15model facilities in Illinois . Nicol is a former Research Fellowwith Northwestern University 's Asset-Based CommunityDevelopment Institute and has served as adjunct faculty atNorthwestern, North Park , and East-West Universities .She has a doctorate in Sociology from NorthwesternUniversity and a Certificate in Nonprofit Managementfrom the University of Illinois-Chicago.

Kade TwistNative Networking Policy CenterKade L.Twist is the Director of Policy for the Native Mediaand Technology Network (NMTN), a national organizingnetwork seeking to build the media and technology capacities of tribes and Native American communitiesthrough media and technology training, content production


SECTION VI

APPENDICES


and distribution. Prior to joining the NMTN movement, Mr.Twist was Co-Founder and Vice President of the NativeNetworking Policy Center (NNPC), a nonprofit organization that worked to ensure equitable and afford-able access to telecommunications and information tech-nology services in Indian Country. Prior to NNPC, Mr.Twistwas a policy analyst for the Benton Foundation specializingin communications policy issues impacting Indian Countryand rural America.While at the Benton Foundation, heworked on the Digital Divide Network, a public interestpolicy project that played a significant role in framing publicdiscourse pertaining to America's digital inequities. In addition to his public policy work, Mr.Twist is also a pub-lished poet, as well as a multimedia instillation artist whoseinstallations have been included in national and local exhibitions. Mr.Twist was a University of OklahomaSequoyah Fellow (1998-1999) and graduated from theUniversity of Oklahoma with a Bachelor of Arts inAmerican Indian studies. Mr.Twist is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.Constituency:American Indians living on tribal lands and inurban areas.

FROM NAF AND CIMA

Michael CalabreseNew America FoundationAs Vice President of the New America Foundation,Michael Calabrese directs the Wireless Future Program,which pursues research and policies to promote a morefair and efficient use of the airwaves in order to unlock thefull potential of the new wireless era. Mr. Calabrese alsoco-directs New America's Retirement Security Program,and helps guide the Foundation's work to reform andexpand our nation's health care coverage. Previously, Mr.Calabrese served as Director of Domestic Policy Programsat the Center for National Policy, as General Counsel ofthe Congressional Joint Economic Committee, and as pen-sion and employee benefits counsel at the national AFL-CIO.

J.H. SniderNew America FoundationAs the Research Director of the Wireless Future Programat the New America Foundation, J.H. Snider focuses on thechanging implications of emerging information technolo-gies, including fiber optics and smart radio, in the areas oftelecommunications, e-education, e-commerce, and

e-democracy. Mr. Snider came to New America after serving in the U.S. Senate on the staffs of Senators Wydenand Leahy as an American Political Science AssociationCongressional Fellow in Communications and Public Policy.

Naveen Lakshmipathy,New America FoundationAs a Program Associate in the Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation, Naveen Lakshmipathy contributes to the program's efforts to broaden publicaccess to the airwaves through research, writing, and outreach. He also manages the program's web contentand print publications. He has studied at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley and the London School of Economicsand is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Aliza DichterCIMA: Center for International Media ActionAliza Dichter is the Co-Director of CIMA: Center forInternational Media Action, a nonprofit organization thatserves as a networking, research and strategy center forgroups working to transform the media system in theservice of social justice and human rights. (www.mediaac-tioncenter.org) Previously, she helped found the nonprofitMediaChannel.org, serving as Senior Editor and EducationCoordinator for a global information network of morethan 1,000 media-issues groups. She currently serves onthe Board of Directors for Women In Media and News(WIMN), a women's media-analysis, training and advocacyorganization.An original member of the international CRISCampaign (Communication Rights in the InformationSociety),Aliza was a delegate to the Third World SocialForum in January 2003 in Brazil; in Geneva in December2003, she participated in the World Forum onCommunication Rights at the UN World Summit on theInformation Society as well as the We Seize! counter-sum-mit.Aliza recently served as the 2005 "Visionary InResidence" at Dartmouth College's Center for Womenand Gender. Her articles on public-interest media policyand activism have been published by Alternet, Media File,The Indypendent and the international quarterly journalMedia Development. She lives in the Catskill Mountains ofNew York.

SECTION VI

APPENDICESBios: Stakeholder Strategy Committee


SECTION VI

APPENDICESMemo from NAF: Current/Upcoming Policy Fights

By Naveen LakshmipathyApril 5, 2006

BACKGROUND: Low-cost, high-speed, community-based wireless broadband networks are croppingup across the country-revolutionizing public communications, spurring economic development, and bridging thedigital divide. They blanket entire towns, cities and counties in rural and urban areas and serve as mobile communications systems for public safety agencies in communities nationwide. While the vast majority of thesebroadband providers are small commercial Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), a growing number aresponsored by local governments and nonprofit community groups.There are several issues pending at the FCC and in Congress that hold great implications for the success or failureof community wireless networks.The following key debates are discussed in this Policy Backgrounder:

1. Open Spectrum - What all community wireless networks-commercial (WISP), municipal and

community nonprofit—have in common is the unlicensed spectrum they use to transmit signals. Expanding unlicensedspectrum in low frequencies would serve as “rocket fuel” for community wireless networks and the expansion oflow-cost broadband access to all Americans.

2. Municipal Wireless - The authority of municipal and other local government entities to establish

wireless broadband networks for public access is under attack at the state and federal levels. Despite the lack ofcompetition in wired broadband offerings and the plethora of social and economic benefits provided by community wireless, powerful incumbent telecommunications corporations are lobbying to make municipal wireless offerings illegal.

3. Network Neutrality - Establishing multiple broadband paths to the home by fostering community

wireless broadband networks on unlicensed spectrum would serve to fend off plans by incumbent wireline broadband providers to control the quality and choice of content available to consumers over the Internet.

POLICY BACKGROUNDERCommunity Wireless: Overview of Current Policy Debates


WHAT IT ISå

Unlicensed, or open spectrum, refers to seg-ments of the airwaves that have not been licensedby the government for exclusive use by one compa-ny or other entity. (For example,TV and radio sta-tions have an exclusive license to broadcast on a par-ticular 6 MHz “channel” of spectrum in their localmarket; or cell phone licenses, most of which werepurchased at auction for their exclusive use.)

å

Technologies such as WiFi, which are used toprovide broadband wireless data access over smallareas, transmit signals over unlicensed open spec-trum (e.g., you don't need a license to set up a wire-less internet network in your home or office).

å

Unlicensed frequency bands are shared, with noprotection against interference. Prior to the WiFiboom, they were referred to as the “junk” bands -and are stilled shared by an estimated 300 millionconsumer devices such as cordless phones, babymonitors, garage door openers and microwaveovens.

å

WiFi networks are relatively inexpensive todeploy, because the equipment is mass-producedand utilizes unlicensed spectrum, which can beshared by anyone for free.

å

Multiple WiFi nodes can be set up in a “mesh”architecture to efficiently spread wireless broadbandaccess over a large area.

THE OPPORTUNITYå

Currently, the amount of spectrum allocated forunlicensed, open access is miniscule compared towhat is devoted for licensed, exclusive use.

å

As a general rule of thumb, lower-frequency spec-trum is higher-quality spectrum, because these air-waves travel farther and can better penetratethrough obstacles like walls and trees.

å

Very little of the most valuable “beachfront” spec-trum - those frequencies that easily penetrate obsta-cles such as walls, trees and precipitation, as TV sig-nals do - are allocated for unlicensed sharing (seeenclosed fact sheet on “Rhetoric and Reality ofProgress in Allocating Unlicensed”).

å

The segment of unlicensed spectrum that is cur-rently usable for WiFi is in relatively high frequency(in the 5 GHz band) - which is useful for fixed loca-tion, line-of-sight transmissions, but not very usefulfor mobile or “last mile” broadband connections(particularly where there is a need to propagate asignal through trees, walls or other obstacles).

å

Opening up more spectrum for unlicensed usein lower frequencies would make spreading wirelessbroadband access cheaper and easier. Fewer WiFiaccess points would need to be installed to coverlarger areas -- and coverage quality would improvebecause signals would be better able to go throughobstacles (i.e., there would be fewer “dead spots”without access).

å

Currently, every region in America has greatamounts of low-frequency spectrum that is sittingempty and unused. These are the unused TV chan-nels.

å

Opening more low-frequency spectrum - suchas the unused TV channels - is therefore the “rocketfuel” needed to facilitate and scale up communitywireless networks.

å

Advancements in technology would allow WiFiand other wireless broadband devices to sensewhich TV channels are unused in a given area, anduse only those channels without interfering withadjacent TV channels used by broadcasters. Thesedevices would be subject to strict technical rules andtesting to ensure that they would not disrupt televi-sion signals and cause harm to those who rely onover-the-air television

SECTION VI

APPENDICESMemo from NAF: Current/Upcoming Policy FightsOPEN SPECTRUM

PENDING BILLS /REGULATIONS

å

FCC: In 2004, the FCC initiated a Notice ofProposed Rule Making (NPRM) that proposedopening unused TV channel spectrum, on a market-by-market basis, for unlicensed wireless broadbanduse.This would be of particular benefit to rural andremote areas, which have many unused TV channels,and are in most need of affordable broadbandaccess.

o FCC Docket 04-186“ This regulation has stalled at the FCC due

to claims by TV broadcasters that allowing unli-censed open access to empty TV channels wouldinterfere with adjacent channels occupied by TVbroadcasters, preventing viewers from watchingthose channels. NAF and a coalition of over 20public interest groups, community wirelessproviders and technology companies filed multi-ple sets of comments in this proceeding, urgingthe FCC to open up the currently fallowresource of empty TV channels for unlicensedwireless broadband, and rebutting the TV broad-cast industry's technical claims of TV interference.

å

Congress: Earlier this year, two very similar billswere proposed in the Senate CommerceCommittee, both of which would both direct theFCC to complete this rulemaking process and openup empty TV channel spectrum.A House version ofthe bill was introduced in April.

o Commerce Committee Chair, Sen.Ted Stevens(R-AK), has introduced the AmericanBroadband for Communities Act(S.2332)

o Senators George Allen (R-VA), Barbara Boxer(D-CA), John Kerry (D-MA) and John Sununu (R-NH) have introduced the WirelessInnovation Act (S.2327)

“ Although still in committee, bipartisan supportfrom members of the Senate CommerceCommittee give these bills good prospects. NAFallies testified in support of the bills at a recentCommittee hearing and continue to educateCongressional staff about the tremendous meritsof these bills. These and other potential bills listedin this memo might be voted on in stand-alonemanner, or they may get attached to a largerTelecom reform legislation. Rep. Jay Inslee is seek-ing GOP co-sponsors for a House bill.

o In the House, Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

and Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced the

American Broadband ForCommunities Act in April 2006

The prospect of Congressional action may spur the FCCto complete the proceeding before legislation is evenpassed. Feedback and stories of actual wireless broadbandproviders utilizing unlicensed spectrum is critical in thiscampaign.

SECTION VI

APPENDICESMemo from NAF: Current/Upcoming Policy Fights

Building Constituencies For Spectrum Policy Change First Report:Wireless Broadband & Public Needs


WHAT IT ISã Community groups, cities and towns across the

country are setting up low-cost, high-speed wirelessbroadband networks utilizing technologies like WiFithat operate on unlicensed, open spectrum.

ã These networks are relatively cheap and easy todeploy (and, as noted above, would be even moreso with more low-frequency unlicensed spectrum),and offer the potential to bring wireless broadbandconnectivity to areas where it is currently unavailableor unaffordable.

THE OPPORTUNITYã Some of the many promising benefits of affordable,

community-based wireless broadband access:o Rural Access - Wireless broadband can connect

rural and remote areas where wired connectionsare unavailable or unaffordable. In a connected andmore competitive world, affordable access to high-speed Internet connections will likely determinethe business, educational, employment and culturalopportunities available in small town and ruralAmerica. Broadband wireless access has innovativeapplications to improve agricultural efficiency as well.

o Bridging Digital Divide - By making broadbandservice available and more affordable - in somecases even a “free” municipal services - unlicensedwireless networks can bring the economic, educa-tional and cultural opportunities of the Internet tothose who previously did not have access.Commercial providers with a bottom-line motiva-tion have neither the incentive nor requirement toprovide access for all.

o Community Networking - Community-basedgroups providing wireless broadband connectivityare setting up internal community web portals(“intranets”) that facilitate social networking andcommunity building. Such portals can be used to

advertise community events, facilitate dialogueabout local issues, etc. Examples areOneEconomy's Beehive, Southern California TribalDigital Village, etc.

o Local Economic Development /Competitiveness - Businesses large and smallneed broadband access to operate efficiently, topurchase inputs and to sell outputs at the bestprices, worldwide.Affordable wireless broadbandaccess can help attract businesses to a region-orprevent them from leaving. Even in large urbanareas, such as New York City, thousands of compa-nies lack access to the cable or DSL broadbandaccess prevalent in residential neighborhoods.Public wireless access can also attract customersto retail and downtown areas to spur more eco-nomic activity.

o Opportunities for Small Business / Alternativeto Large Wired Internet Providers - Across thecountry, thousands of small commercial wirelessInternet service providers have entered the mar-ket to provide low-cost broadband access usingunlicensed, open spectrum.This has occurred pri-marily in rural areas where wired connections areunavailable or unaffordable.With access to unli-censed spectrum, small businesses can set upwireless internet services in communities for a rel-atively low cost. With more, higher-quality openspectrum, these low barriers to entry are anopportunity for small and minority-owned business-es to enter the Internet Service Provider market.

o Competition to Wired Services - Unlicensedwireless broadband services provide competitionfor the dominant cable/DSL broadband providerslike Verizon, Comcast and TimeWarner, as well asfor licensed cellular phone operators like VerizonWireless and AT&T.This not only helps bringdown prices, but can also spur cable and telecomgiants to upgrade their wired networks and pro-vide enhanced services.

Memo from NAF: Current/Upcoming Policy Fights

SECTION II

COMMUNITY / MUNICIPAL WIRELESS


o Pervasive Connectivity - Wireless broadband isnot only a competitive substitute to wired broad-band, but it is also an irreplaceable complement.Only wireless networks can provide ubiquitousconnectivity to enable mobile communicationsand data services.

o A Haven for Net Neutrality—Community wire-less networks sponsored by nonprofits and localgovernments are most likely to preserve connec-tivity principles of “net neutrality.” Open wirelessnetworks - if they are of sufficient quality - canhelp put pressure on private broadband providerswhose inclination will be to discriminate amongapplications, services and content providers thatpay for priority delivery.

ã Local governments across the country—fromsmall towns to large cities and entire counties—haveset up or are announcing plans to establish citywideand regional wireless broadband networks.

ã In most cases, the governments issue a request forproposal (RFP) and solicit bids from private sectorwireless providers.These RFPs outline requirementsfor service quality, coverage and pricing. (Contractsare in some ways similar to franchise agreementswith cable companies).o Many cities plan to utilize shared revenues with

the winning bidders to finance digital divide pro-grams, which would provide subsidized Internetaccess, computer equipment and/or training tolow-income communities

o Citizen participation is essential in any municipalwireless RFP and contract award process, particu-larly because some cities are adopting businessmodels that could result in an inferior form of pub-lic broadband (compared to competing commer-cial offerings).

THE THREATã The nation's large telecom providers have been

vehemently opposed to municipal and regional wire-less broadband efforts for fear that low-cost wireless

broadband access will cut into their revenues fromwired broadband offerings.

ã They have lobbied at both the state and national lev-els to pre-empt local governments from offeringtelecommunications services, claiming that these net-works amount to unfair taxpayer-subsidized competi-tion with the private sector, and that competition willcut into their profits and slow the expansion andupgrade of their broadband networks.

ã In reality, most municipal broadband networks useno taxpayer money whatsoever (capital costs areunderwritten by the winning bidder), and municipalnetworks have often forced dominant providers toexpand to areas that they had not previously served.

PENDING BILLS / REGULATIONS(adapted from www.freepress.net)

State Level: At present, 15 states have alreadypassed laws restricting the ability of municipalities to pro-vide broadband services, six states have successfully fendedof such legislation, and two states, Indiana and Ohio, havesuch legislation pending (see list and details athttp://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/=states).

Federal Level:o The Good - In the Senate, Sens. Frank Lautenberg

(D-N.J.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have introducedS. 1294, the Community Broadband Act of 2005.Thisbill would specifically permit municipalities to offerlow-cost broadband service. If this bill passes, itwould overturn all state legislation prohibiting munici-pal broadband systems.

>>>“ This bill is still in committee. NAF and allies havebeen compiling success stories of community andmunicipal broadband projects, and are working to edu-cate committee members and staff about the merits ofthis bill (and the dangers of those listed below).

o Also in the Senate, Byron Dorgan (D-SD) andGordon Smith (R-OR) have introduced a bill, theUniversal Service for the 21st Century Act, whichwould create a 'Broadband for Unserved Areas


SECTION II


Account,' that would be used to provide grant fund-ing for qualifying community broadband projects.

o The Bad- In the Senate, Nevada Republican JohnEnsign has introduced The Broadband Investmentand Consumer Choice Act, S. 1504, a bill whichwould preempt local governments wishing to offerbroadband services to citizens.They would first haveto ask the private provider for permission. Existingmunicipal projects would be grandfathered in, butwould not be able to expand services.

o The Ugly- In the House,Texas Republican PeteSessions-a former SBC executive whose wife stillworks for the company-has introduced H.R. 2726, abill which would prevent any city in the country fromproviding their citizens with Internet access if a pri-vate company offers service nearby. Ironically titledthe Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005,this bill would do just the opposite. Even in citieswhere a private provider serves just 10 percent ofthe residents, a municipality would be barred fromhelping those without access. If a private serviceprovider is overcharging residents, the bill would pre-vent local governments from offering a low-costalternative.


SECTION II

NETWORK NEUTRALITY (AKA “INTERNET FREEDOM”)

WHAT IT ISã “Network neutrality” is the idea that all Internet

users are entitled to access content and services, orto run applications and devices, of their choice. Thisis the open, end-to-end architecture of the Internetas it developed thanks to common carrier regulation.

ã When the Internet first developed over copper tele-phone lines, with users dialing in through local tele-phone exchanges, networks were neutral due to the“common carrier” regulatory obligations placed ontelephone providers-that is, telephone providers arerequired to connect any users on a non-discrimina-tory basis - and allow consumers to attach their owndevices (phones, computers) to the circuit-switchedtelephone network.o This ensured that any would-be Internet user

could connect with any Internet Service Provider(ISP), who would in turn connect the user to theInternet at large. As a result, the early days of theInternet were characterized by vigorous competi-tion between service providers, who competedon the basis of both price and quality of service.

ã With the rise of cable as a broadband Internetprovider, these dynamics shifted. Cable TV networksare not subject to common carrier obligations.Moreover, the FCC chose to designate broadbandInternet services as “information services,” a regula-tory designation that means cable broadband net-work operators are not required to let users con-nect with any Internet Service Provider or accessany content/services and run any devices/applica-tions.o In June 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the

FCC's decision to designate cable broadbandservices as information services not subject tocommon carrier obligations as part of the crucialBrand X case.This opens the door for cable, fiberand other broadband providers to kill net neutral-ity, unless Congress acts to ensure it.

THE THREATã Large cable and telecom providers that own the

wired broadband Internet pipes into homes andbusinesses are trying to section off the Internet-cre-ating a “fast lane” for certain preferred content andapplications, while delivering other content and appli-


cations at slower speeds, degrading the content, orblocking it entirely.The companies that own broad-band pipes into the home and office want to chargecertain Internet content and application providers forfaster delivery to users who rely on them.Theyintend to favor their own or affiliated services orcontent by delivering it at faster speeds or simply byblocking competing services.o For example,Time Warner, one of the country's

largest cable providers, could favor content pro-duced by AOL or Warner Brothers (also ownedby Time Warner). Or AT&T could block theirInternet customers from using a competingInternet phone service instead of AT&T's ownInternet phone offering.

o This isn't just a threat, it's actually happened: In2004, a North Carolina Internet Service Providerblocked its DSL customers from using an Internetphone service that competed with its own. In2005, Canadian telephone giant Telus blocked itsusers from accessing a website sympathetic to theTelecommunication Workers Union during a labordispute.

o Both Verizon's and AT&T's CEOs (as well as theCEO of BellSouth, which recently was purchasedby AT&T), have expressed interest in making cer-tain Internet content and application providers payfor use of “their” pipes.

ã In the future, services like TV and telephone will bedelivered through the Internet over broadbandpipes. This stifles both consumer choice and the abil-ity of producers of new content, services and appli-cations to serve people on a level playing field.o Access to alternative and community media is

threatened - they will be less able to get attentionand be accessed by all.The Internet has the poten-tial to be an extraordinary playing field where anoncommercial or independent news/media serv-ice could start up and provide significant alterna-tives to mainstream media companies- but with-out net neutrality, upstart and independent mediasources could be marginalized.

o New and innovative applications and content—search engines like Google, streaming video, pod-casting, Internet phone services—could never havebeen developed or become popular if theInternet didn't offer free and non-discriminatorydelivery. Under the current structure of theInternet, anyone can be an innovator.

ã In a world of consolidation, in which the wiredbroadband connections into homes and businessesare owned by a small handful of large companies,with very little competition and consumer choice,the temptation to discriminate grows.

THE OPPORTUNITYã Increasing access to wireless broadband Internet

access has the potential to serve as an antidote tothe threat of losing network neutrality.

ã Local governments, community groups and smallWireless Internet Service Providers can bypass dom-inant wired broadband providers that do not respectnet neutrality and lay another broadband pipe tohomes and businesses by setting up open, neutral,affordable high-speed wireless broadband networks.This would allow consumers to access the contentand applications of their choosing, and would providea competitive threat to the large incumbentproviders of wired broadband pipes, forcing them toremain neutral as well.

ã Yet again, access to high-quality low-frequency openspectrum is critical to fostering the development ofcommunity, municipal and commercial wirelessbroadband networks.o Network neutrality over wireless networks is not

a foregone conclusion. In cases in which a munici-pality contracts with a single wireless broadbandnetwork operator, it must take caution to ensurethat the operator allows open access to all serviceproviders and does not discriminate against anycontent or applications. Public comment in hear-ings is crucial to ensuring that municipal wirelessprojects require net neutrality.


SECTION II


PENDING BILLS / REGULATIONSã While fostering the deployment of open, high-speed

wireless broadband networks is a de facto way ofensuring net neutrality in both wireless and wiredbroadband networks, Congress has begun to take onthe issue through legislation:o Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced the

Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, whichprohibits broadband network operators fromdeliberately blocking, degrading, or slowing anyInternet content.

ã In addition, although the debate so far has focusedentirely on wired Internet providers, the NewAmerica Foundation is developing proposals toensure that net neutrality obligations are extendedequally to wireless Internet providers. Since Internetaccess will increasingly be mobile and pervasive—and because wireless network operators are usingthe public airwaves—t will be increasingly critical thatthey adhere to public interest obligations withrespect to net neutrality.


SECTION II

First Report: WIRELESS BROADBAND & PUBLIC NEEDS

Documents

Transcript of First Report: WIRELESS BROADBAND & PUBLIC NEEDS