I published this today on IFTF's future/now blog Trying to get some muni-heads to think about the future a bit more creatively than just web browsing
> > This just sort of fell out of my head this afternoon... my response to a lot > of these municpal wireless projects has finally congealed in a somewhat > conherent form. > > ----- > Ad-Supported Municipal Wireless Networks and the Future of Cities: Three > Issues Missing From the Current Debate > > Anthony Townsend > Research Director > Technology Horizons Program > Institute for the Future > Palo Alto, California > http://www.iftf.org > > From Philadelphia to San Francisco to Portland, plans for municipal wireless > networks are on the drawing board in hundreds of cities across America. These > ambitious projects are driven by both push and pull forces. On the push side, > Wi-Fi technology has rewritten the economics of deploying broadband access in > densely built cities. What used to require tearing up streets and deploying > costly cables now can be achieved my mounting antennas on street lamps every > hundred yards or so. On the pull side, minority communities and small > businesses that have been bypassed by DSL and digital cable buildout are > mobilizing and demanding equal access to the vital economic lifeline that > broadband networks represent. > > While the speed with which local governments are moving to exploit this > opportunity is admirable, IFTF¹s research has identified several areas where > insufficient energy is being devoted to explore the long-term consequences of > design and implementation decisions. While the working life of today¹s Wi-Fi > technologies may only be five to ten years, the infrastructure and governance > models put in place today are likely to shape a whole generation¹s worth of > urban wireless networks. If cities fail to think ahead, they may find it more > challenging to leverage wireless infrastructure for digital inclusion, > economic development and public safety in the future. > > There are three key areas that deserve special attention: > Guaranteeing citizens¹ role as content providers > Finding a balance for location privacy > Enabling the Internet of Things > > Guaranteeing Citizens¹ Role as Content Providers > > Perhaps the most exciting development on the Internet in the last five years > has been the rise of open, lightweight toolkits for the collaborative creation > of local knowledge. San Francisco-based Craigslist.org for example, has become > one of the main repositories for classified advertising, and an engine for > local economic and social development by making it easier for people to trade > and organize locally. Wikipedia has enabled a global community to develop an > authoritiatve, multi-lingual compendium of knowledge. > > Discussions about the design of today¹s municipal wireless networking efforts > have not yet addressed the way community-created content can be solicited and > integrated in the splash pages and portal sites where wireless users are > greeted when they connect. We do know that cities such as Long Beach, > California and business improvement districts in New York City have > experimented with local content. However, these past experiments did not > leverage the tools we possess today to rethink how we might provide a > community bulletin board as an integral part of the municipal wireless > experience. The directions of current municipal projects instead are > unwittingly viewing the wireless network as a means to escape local > communities, and as a one-way street for advertisers to subsidize the > network¹s operating costs. > > Therefore, in order to guarantee that municipal wireless networks willl > enhance citizen¹s roles as content providers, cities should: > Require that wireless franchisees provide significant community access to > wireless captive portal pages and splash pages. Ownership, control and access > to this resource can be organized in any number of ways having local > students document and chronicle local events and other open content authoring > models. > Cities should demand access to any future advertising channel deployed on > ad-supported municipal networks for public service announcement-type content. > > Striking A Balance on Location Privacy > > A deadlock is looming over the issue of location privacy on municipal wireless > networks. On the one hand, ISPs and advertisers argue that only constant > monitoring of user location will allow them to effectively understand and > target ads to justify the costs of building and operating citywide networks. > On the other hand, privacy advocates argue essentially that any tracking of > user location that is not necessary for the operation of data communications > service is an unnecessary invasion of individual privacy. > > However, reality, as always is less clear. While cultural differences abound, > wireless users around the world have shown a willingness to have their > locations tracked for various purposes security, navigation, and social > networking. However, companies and governments have also consistently > underestimated people¹s ability to make informed decisions about the > disclosure of personal information. And it is increasingly clear that > location-targeted advertising may be the best single business model for rapid, > comprehensive deployment of wireless broadband in American cities. > > What is needed then is a solution that balances users¹ desires for > location-based services that content providers and advertisers seek to > deliver, but also allows users to safeguard their personal location > information. One technical solution to this dilemma comes from Intel Research > Seattle, whose PlaceLab software allows a Wi-Fi laptop or cellular smart phone > to accurately determine its position without any outside help, and then let > the user chose when and where to share this information with 3rd party content > providers. Such privacy-observant location technologies should be on the top > of any city¹s demand for wireless franchisees seeking to deploy user-tracking > technologies. > > Therefore, in order to guarantee a balanced approach to user location privacy, > cities should: > Favor proposals that put the power of location determination and sharing > of location data in the user¹s hands > Emphasize the need for special precautions to protect location data for > vulnerable populations such as teenagers > Provide a mechanism for receiving and investigating claims of abuse and > excessive invasions of privacy > > Enabling the Internet of Things > > Finally, and perhaps most importantly, cities need to start thinking beyond > contemporary visions of wireless usage which is essentially limited to > people going online from Wi-Fi equipped laptops and PDAs and embrace more > future-oriented visions of a world of connected things. > > For the next five years or so, most of the devices that we will connect to > municipal networks will be interactive terminals laptops, desktops, PDAs and > smart phones. What these devices all have in common is a screen, that can > display a web browser, onto which the value-producing location-based ads can > be shown. > > However, as we move out beyond five years, increasingly the value of universal > wireless converage will start to come from the browser-less objects that can > benefit from being connected to the Internet. Yury Gitman¹s MagicBike has > shown the potential of what USC professor Julian Bleecker calls ³blogjects² or > objects that blog, and record data about themselves to the Internet. > > We don¹t know quite yet what these Internet-connected objects will really be > useful for, but that¹s sort of the point. The cities that create an enviroment > that is friendly to experimentation with these new technologies and the ways > of urban living they will enable, will become a natural incubator for an > entire new generation of technology companies. The Internet of Things is going > to be invented in cities which possess the most complex ecosystems of > things, people and places - but the question of which cities is still a very > much open matter. > > The problem arises however, in that most of the proposals being put forth > today for ad-support municipal networks require a browser-based login. This is > where the user is identified and authenticated for tracking. While this is a > necessary function (with due attentions to the concerns voiced above), it > precludes the possibility of widespread access to the Internet for networked > objects without screens and browsers. > > Therefore, in order to encourage the Internet of Things and the economic > development opportunities it presents, cities should: > Require franchisees to devote some minimal network resources to networked > objects for experimental purposes. The bandwidth requirements would not be > excessive, but constant connectivity without complex connection obstacles are > needed to encourage bottom-up innovation. > Separate the issue of VoIP handsets from the Internet of things. In the > short-term, Voice over IP handsets will be the main form of browser-less > device accessing municipal networks. However, VoIP telephony needs to be > treated separately from access for networked objects, which are an > experimental use not a commercial one. > > > > Put Squeet on Your Blog <http://www.squeet.com/Promote.aspx> | Read the > Squeet Blog <http://squeetblog.blogspot.com/> > > This email was sent to you based on your requested RSS feeds and schedule. To > manage your Squeet account and subscriptions, visit Squeet.com > <http://www.squeet.com> . > > Powered by Squeet.com <http://www.squeet.com> . > ------ End of Forwarded Message --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TELECOM-CITIES Current searchable archives (Feb. 1, 2006 to present) at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Old searchble archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
