Does Free Wireless Internet Have A Chance?

In the months following Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin made it a priority to have free wireless internet available throughout the city. The local government believed that this would give small businesses a chance to reestablish themselves, even though they may lack a physical location. The service did actually launch in the late part of 2005, but it was taken down less than a year later. What happened?

In the case of New Orleans, a private company began providing access to the area covered by the city owned system. Surprisingly, the service remained free.

I get excited when I think about the prospect of free wireless internet. As a subscriber to the local ISP that has a bit of a monopoly over the area, I have always tried to find a service which would give me the same speed for a lower price. However, if I could get service for free, I may be willing to sacrifice a few Kbps.

EarthLink mentions that higher speed access would be available to residents of the area for a fee. Obviously. I would never expect a company to enter a market without the idea that money could be made. I do think that it is a measure of good will that they had the sense to carry on the free service that the city determined was necessary. While it remains to be seen if the service will continue indefinitely, I see this as an interesting model for other cities that hope to provide better access to their citizenry.

Philadelphia shows the next possible step in the effort. Last year, Philadelphia transferred ownership of its city wide wireless internet service from EarthLink to a local company. It is estimated that about 80% of the city is now covered by the service.

I know that there are other factors involved in arming every citizen with free wireless access. Access is great, but what happens when many people cannot afford a computer. With major cities like New Orleans, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Chicago piloting different programs, we are bound to discover what systems work, what needs improving, and what can be used to increase access to an ever growing population of hungry internet consumers.

So, I do believe that this model does have a chance to be sustainable. Free wireless is obviously something that gets people talking. It helps to create a more even playing field and it gives opportunities to local businesses and residents who may have been left out otherwise. Will this be a quick and painless transition? I think not. Will it ever cover the country? Not likely. However, I don’t believe that slow service or the possibility that a corporation may be involved should put a stop to growth and expansion.

Is Banned Books Week Neccessary?

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article by Mitchell Muncy, it isn't.

Since 1982, Banned Books Week has been celebrated in the last week of September every year. The event “stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints for all who wish to read and access them.” 
Many events around the country are planned this year in celebration, kicking off with the Banned Books Week Readout. Authors of some of the top ten challenged books for the past year will read from their works and discuss their experiences with censorship and their works being challenged.

According to the ALA, books are most often banned due to sexual content, offensive language, or inappropriateness for an age group. 

Classics that have been banned or challenged include The Catcher in the Rye, The Color Purple, and Slaughterhouse Five. Some of last year's most challenged books are: And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, about two male penguins who become adoptive parents (based on actual events at the Central Park Zoo in New York), His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, challenged because of political and religious viewpoints and violence, and Gossip Girl by Cecily von Ziegesar, the basis for the TV show of the same name.

Muncy makes the point that these books are rarely successfully banned – most have simply been challenged. He pulls most of his quotes – and most of his ire – from a Manifesto recently adopted by Banned Books Week, which is actually a poem by Ellen Hopkins. She wrote it in response to having her book banned from a town in Idaho. An excerpt:

Torch every book.

Burn every page.

Char every word to ash.

Ideas are incombustible.

And therein lies your real fear.

Muncy writes, “For the ALA, what makes [those who challenge books] censors is that they spoke up at all: "True" patriots, presumably, would have kept quiet. Who, then, is afraid of discourse?”

On its website, the ALA makes it clear that no viewpoint should be censored – even that of those who would have books banned. However, just because one person disagrees with something expressed in a book or elsewhere does not mean that others should not have access to that information if they want it.

Most often, those who speak out against books are parents, looking out for the interests of their children. “What inflames the ALA," Muncy writes, "are attempts by parents to guide their children's education. One of the 'frequently asked questions' on the ALA's Web site is: 'Can't parents tell the librarian what material they don't think children should have?' The Manifesto's answer is clearly 'no.'”

It is understandable that parents want to shield their children from certain subject matter, but that is a choice only they can make for their children. In the Free Access to Libraries for Minors Statement from the ALA,

“Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children's—and only their children’s—access to library resources. Parents and guardians who do not want their children to have access to specific library services, materials, or facilities should so advise their children.”

In an article by the Guardian, Ellen Hopkins says, "My books speak to hard subject matter. Addiction. Cutting. Thoughts of suicide. Abuse. Sexual abuse. All these issues affect children. Look at the statistics. Closing your eyes won't make these things go away. Why not talk about them with your kids, to arm them with knowledge.”

Muncy implies that librarians are the real censors, since they make the decision about what goes on library shelves and what doesn't. Librarians try to make their decisions about which books to buy based on what will best serve their community's needs. Muncy ignores the fact that libraries are increasingly under tight budget restrictions. Even given larger budgets, we all know that it is impossible to please everyone. That's why there's Interlibrary Loan, which allows patrons access to books their local library doesn't have.

Banned Books Week brings attention to the importance of the first amendment and our freedom to read. If we were to lose our freedoms in the US, they would no likely be taken away in one fell swoop. They would disappear little by little, and we may not even notice until they are gone. This is why events like Banned Book Week are important – so that we don't ignore attempts to take away our freedoms, like the freedom to choose what we read and what ideas we have access to.

Here is a video of Ellen Hopkins reciting her Manifesto:

Do We Really Need Senate Legislation?

Senate legislation was introduced on June 25th which would require any US government agency or department with a budget of over $100 million to make various research findings available on the Internet. Click here to view the text of the bill. Understandably, the policy does not apply to various pieces of information like phone calls or classified research. It does dictate that non-classified research be made available online as soon as possible after the article has been published.

While I believe this is valuable legislation, I wonder if it goes far enough. $100 million is a lot of money - but so is $50 million, or $10 million. I know that these figures may be small change to the government, but in the real world they are pretty substantial. Perhaps the government would argue that that would be too much information to publish online, but as far as I am aware the Internet does not have a limit to the amount of information that can be published. If the research will already be published in a pear-reviewed journal (as the legislation dictates) then it does not seem like a stretch to add a quick Internet link to a copy of the research findings which can be viewed by anyone with an Internet connection.

I can also foresee the argument that certain topics which require small funding budgets do not have the level of interest required to publish online. 10 years ago, I would have welcomed any opportunity to ease my research on Finnish syllable structure. I realize that the US government probably contributes virtually no (if any) funding to this topic. But hypothetically, a small amount of research that I could have accessed online may have saved hours of cross referencing and trips to various different libraries. I received no funding for my thesis research and I would have happily published my findings online - knowing full well that the interest in the topic may extend to about 10 other people.

I may be naive, but it seems that it should not take legislation to require research findings be published online. Is it actually that difficult? As I stated, I know that there are topics that should remain classified; however, if I came up with a finding that I believed was important or interesting enough to share, why not share it with everyone? It seems like a logical decision.

Thought Control: Australia's Firewall

If you were to enter the Australian government website you would find a bright colored smiley face with the words next to it that read Cyber Smart. A click on this link would take you for a ride to the happy land of multi-level censorship. Censorship, which the Australian government labels "cyber safety," has various Internet control options for children, teens, parents and even libraries.

Australia's government has forcibly erected ISP filters which they claim are designed to regulate and filter inappropriate content mainly for children. There is NOT an opt out option. Internet users can choose to opt out of the filter for child safety but there not an option to opt out of the "illegal content" filter. The question really becomes "who is deciding what is illegal content?"
The government is relying solely on the Australia Media and Communications Authority (AMCA) to provide specific sites for blacklisting. ACMA is also responsible for telecommunication, broadcasting, and radio regulation as well as Spam control.

On February 24, 2009 in a news interview the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, admitted that there is a possibility that the government will block legal as well as illegal content. Currently the Internet content that is considered illegal is Refused Classification and X18+ material, which includes simulated sex (without an age limit), depictions of actual sex, and child pornography. One of the main problems is that sexual content is considered to be on the same criminal level as child pornography. It is highly possible that the censorship program could end up prohibiting news articles pertaining to sex in addition to other sexual content. The AMCA also has enacted the Ruddock-era book ban on alleged terrorist material, which would also limit academic research. Stephen Conroy is intent on expanding the definition of "illegal content" to include suicide counseling information, gambling websites, and material that has been banned by multinational corporations.

In my mind, the largest problem with ISP filters is that by controlling the information that people can access you are controlling their thoughts. I completely agree that Spam and child pornography should be deemed illegal, but I don't believe that it should come with the heavy price of forcible ISP filtering and government censorship of other content. People should have the right and freedom to the access of information. And the most terrifying thing of all, is that this is a government sponsored program that is being backed by conservative and corporate interests.


Sources:

Chow, E. (2008) Australia to Build Great Firewall Down Under. Retrieved from http://www.gizmodo.com

Commonwealth of Australia. (2009) How Filtering Works. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au

Commonwealth of Australia. (2008) Minister Welcomes Advances in Internet Filtering Technology.

Retrieved from http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au

Doctorow, C. (2008) Australia’s Great firewall: Just like China, Syria, and other ‘free” Countries. Retrieved from http:// www.boingboing.net

Internet Filtering Trials Explained. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au

Pauli, D. (2008) No opt-out of Filtered Internet. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com