Food for thought as the CTCNet conference nears... I'm happy talk with anyone even remotely interested in the issues below. Be warned.
You can identify me and other AFCN friendly folks by our unmatched socks. -MM -----Original Message----- From: Dan Bassill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:32 AM To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group Subject: Re: [DDN] Stirring the pot: mergers and public interest intervention Michael, I encourage you to post this as a discussion thread on o-net and in the CTCnet conference. You might say, "What would it take for you to get involved?" For me a strategy needs to connect those who need help with those who can help. Part of this obviously needs to show all the reasons a business should invest money However, the list of "who needs help" and "what help is needed" needs to expand to motivate a large enough network of people get involved to influence legislation. Instead of just talking about internet access expenses, let's talk about the different ways technology and the internet can be used to help a youth move from birth to a career. Who are all of the organizations that need to be involved in any neighborhood if a child is to have any help he needs when he needs it? How can they all receive benefit from public interest intervention? At http://www.tutormentorexchange.net/Resources/AgeGroupsLinks/AgeGroupLinksHom e.asp I created a backward mapping chart that is intended to be a worksheet to collect and organize a list of services that are needed in poverty neighborhoods in order to increase the number of kids who are born in one year and who are starting jobs/careers 25 years later. This can be a huge list. And almost everyone on the list has the same needs for flexible operating dollars, less bureaucracy, technology, tech support, internet access, training, leadership, etc. Below is a link to an article that shows how non-profits struggle to provide quality services because of the way they are funded. If you include articles like this in the thinking behind this lobbying effort, I'm sure many more non profit leaders would be inclined to join in, if the result was to gain more consistent, less bureaucratic funding. Link: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/section/704.html Thus strategies that draw resources directly from business and distribute them through Internet portals directly to agencies listed on a chart such as the Backward Map, or the Program Locator at http://www.tutormentorexchange.net, would probably appeal to the self-interests of a lot more organizations than strategies that only provide funds for one part of the enterprise. What kind of strategies might draw resources directly to non profits? What if each company that benefits from mergers or from TIFFs or government contracts was required to offer a workplace donation choice to its employees and that the donation choice included the list of organizations using technology to help kids through school and into careers? The United Way has had a monopoly on workplace fund raising, but I think that youth serving organizations could tap into this funding stream, if they were working together and if public funding contracts encouraged business to innovate ways to change the flow of resources to non profits who ultimately help business by creating better prepared future workers. This is just one suggestion, I'm sure others have their own ideas of ways to increase the flow of funding to all non profits, rather than to just a few. I host this type of conversation at Tutor/Mentor Leadership Conferences and eConferences and encourage others to host this conversation in their own portals. By hosting this in many places we create a grass roots movement that aggregates good ideas, and builds a library of innovations that we can all draw from as we seek to influence public policy. As local organizations around the country build participation in this type of brainstorming, state and national organizations can be meeting places that share ideas between local organizations and that mobilize support for specific legislation, or for specific candidates who support this thinking. I think this could be a way to build the participation you are seeking. Dan Bassill Tutor/Mentor Connection http://tutormentor.blogspot.com on 6/14/05 8:51 PM, Michael Maranda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Friends and Mentors, > > A week or two ago Gene Crick suggested I stir the pot a bit by posing > my questions about state level efforts (either from states or public > interest > parties) to intervene in the recent/pending mergers/takeover: SBC/ATT and > now MCI/Verizon. I delayed doing so because I wanted a better frame for the > question. > > Several years ago, when SBC sought to acquire Ameritech, an > "intervention" was initiated by private party (Don Samuelson/DSSA) for the "public > interest". This was possible, in part, because Illinois law had a > provision that directed that some of the cost savings be returned to > the public. Keeping it short, as a result several things happened: > other parties became involved, special funds were established to > adress the "digital divide", both from telecom infrastructure (still > not spent! as trigger conditions may have been difficult to achieve) and public-access & > training perspectives. (Illinios Community Technology Fund, and a > "voluntary contribution fund" administered by our dept of commerce > that telco's paid into over several years - the latter being a result > of leverage the legislature had at the time duriing the last rewrite > of Illnois telecom law). > > I wasn't active in these issues then, and am not here to document an > exact history, so forgive any errors and ommissions. > > My purpose here is in a concerted public interest response to the > recent/proposed mergers, and that such response be coordinated to > target each potential level and lever we have available. > > I have posed the following questions in several contexts (locally and > to a few of you perhaps directly)... > > On what basis can the states (such as Illinois, where I reside) place > conditions upon the merger (recognizing they cant stop the > mergers(right?)), from state level agencies such as AG or other body, > or on what basis can private parties such as public interest groups do > so, and an equally important part of the general queston: what > resources would be required to push forward such intervention, (and > ancillary: any thoughts on mobilizing such resources)? > > > The limited advice/info I have received thus far was > > 1) key parties at national level have filed with FCC but its likely > to move forward anyway (which I understood ... It wasn't as much a > question of stopping the merger as having leverage to impose > requirements in public > interest) > > 2) check with key local groups to see if they were willing to do > something or if they saw value in this, in our case, specifically the > "Citizens Utility Board" (CUB). > > > On the local side... Illinois, as several other states has been > facing a legislative challenge with rewrite of the state level telecom law, and the > ILECs pursuing anti-muni provisions. Local parties were heavily engaged in > fighting that effort, and Illinois has succeeded in what I think was > the best outcome for now: we extended the current law by two years, > in anticipation of comuning federal rewrite, and we were able to get > the state to kick in 5 mil of general revenue towards digital literacy > funds which are scheduked to dry up, as the "voluntary contributions" > period is also expiring. > > So, groups like CUB, Illinois PIRG, and Citizen Action, as well as other > groups including IMUA, etc. (Not to list them all) ... And grass roots > efforts mobilized by ilCTC and CTCNet Chicago played a role in this, > and most of our attention was absorbed in maintaining existing law to > keep consumer protections in place and to maintain the option of communities to > invest in themslevs or through public-private partnership. We didn't want > another pennsylvania. (As Jim Baller says: remember the Lusitania.) > > With the level of resources required for that fight I have not > witnessed any movement on the local front to respond to the mergers. > Not sure if it is a question of the perceived value, or a calculation > based on resources available, or organizational priority, or even > mandate. > > James Lau and friends in California have passed on info on efforts > there to act in the public interest and impose requirements on the > merged entity. (If someone can cite the California law it might be > instructive) > > I am very glad of California's effort. > > I take to heart the nostrum issued at the National Media Reform > Conference: initiate a response along every point in the chain where > we can mobilize to have leverage. > > Now, rep. Sessions of TX has introduced the federal level legislation > in the attempt to achieve what the ILECs havent been able to do in the > states. I don't agree with leaving the fight at the national level and > before the FCC. I agree with efforts fo Free Press and McChesney et al > to call for public forums across the country with regard to federal > rewrite. > > I think that some of the propensity to accept the "climate" and the > power of the incumbents as determining largely what is expected as a less than > sensible policy needs to be shaken off. I see a lot of allies mobilizing, > and the potential for more. We don't have to "settle" for a policy of > scraps. > > Some of my language can be taken as rhetorical, but I believe a multifaceted > approach will be called for and am capable of subtlety on occasion. But we > need to disseminate the deep knowledge present here to diverse > audiences. > > In the interest of advancing the topic I have presented here, I would > appreciate any advice (or correction) offered, and also suggestion of > best place to have the required discussions or even the planning and > coordination of action. > > I recognize that there is a presupposition in this missive: that > there should be some return to the public from the communications > industry, in a modern equivalent of universal service for the > digital/internet age. I'll try and pose another question/frame > regarding models where that can be sensibly discussed, and ask you to > take this presupposition for granted for the moment. I know that some > of us here self-describe as being pink in red states, but that there > are also those with strong libertarian proclivities. > > I greatly respect the folks on this list, and I thank you in advance. > > > Michael > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Michael Maranda > President, The Association For Community Networking (AFCN) Acting > Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Chair, Illinois > Community Technology Consortium (ilCTC) Vice President, CAAELII > Vice President, NPOTechs > http://www.afcn.org > http://www.ctcnetchicago.org > http://www.ilctc.org > http://www.caaelii.org > http://www.npotechs.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the > body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
