Le seguenti 504 parole non sono state trovate nel dizionario di 1275 termini (includendo 1275 LocalSpellingWords) e sono evidenziate qui sotto:
1980s   2000s   about   activists   actual   acute   Agency   ago   airwaves   alleviate   allied   allow   altamente   alternative   alternatives   americano   among   analista   analysis   Andrew   antagonism   appannaggio   appropriation   architectures   argument   assesses   associated   at   attempt   attempts   attraversarono   autonomy   background   Based   based   baseline   basso   be   becomes   been   begins   being   Benkler   between   binary   both   bringing   broadband   by   calls   came   can   capitalized   capiva   centralisation   centralization   centralized   centralizzato   characteristics   circulation   citizens   Clauz   clear   clusters   collaborate   combinazione   comes   commercial   commons   Commons   communication   communications   Community   community   computer   computers   computing   concentrated   concentrati   concludes   conflicts   conglomerates   connectivity   consequences   contextualize   contingencies   contractual   contrast   contribution   control   controllo   controversy   cooperation   copyrighted   corporation   corso   cosciente   costruite   costruzione   counter   counterbalance   created   creation   Creative   creative   current   days   de   decentralization   decentralized   decentralizing   decentralizzati   decentralizzazione   democratic   democratize   deployed   deploying   deployment   describing   destruction   determinate   deterministico   development   developments   diffusi   digital   dipende   disponibili   disrupt   dissemination   distributed   diventare   dominant   dove   down   dozen   draw   driven   dynamics   early   economic   economica   economici   ecosystem   ed   effetti   emerge   emerged   encourage   entails   enter   erosion   especially   establish   Europe   European   evolved   evolvono   examples   exclusively   exerted   exerting   exhibit   existed   existing   extent   fact   fattori   features   Feenberg   fertile   few   Fi   fieldwork   focus   focusing   following   For   for   Forty   foster   fostering   found   framework   freedom   from   furono   gap   gatekeepers   geographical   gestione   Given   goal   governance   grandi   grassroots   greater   ground   groups   growing   hands   happened   hegemony   highly   history   how   However   illustrate   impact   incoraggiata   incumbent   independent   industrialization   information   infrastructure   infrastructures   initiatives   inizio   innovation   innovative   interests   interviews   into   istituzionali   Ithiel   its   jurisdictional   key   known   landline   large   larger   last   Later   lawyers   legal   legale   legali   level   libertà   librarians   licenses   Likewise   lo   local   loro   macchine   main   managed   many   massive   media   mezzi   microcomputer   mile   model   models   modo   monopolizzati   more   motivations   movement   moves   narrow   National   nearly   necessarily   need   needs   neglected   negli   network   networks   Networks   new   niente   novel   number   objectives   often   older   on   ongoing   online   opposed   oppressive   or   order   organizations   our   out   outlines   over   overcome   overlooked   overlooks   ovvero   owned   owners   paper   paradigms   part   participants   participative   particular   parties   peer   peers   personal   perspective   phenomenon   philosopher   picture   play   plays   point   pointing   policies   policy   politica   political   politiche   politici   politico   politics   Pool   populated   potenti   potential   potuto   power   powerful   precedenti   prejudicial   presenting   privacy   private   probabile   process   production   produrre   profits   progressively   proposes   proprietary   protocols   Providers   providing   provision   Ps   public   pushing   quali   qualitative   quest   radicale   raised   Rather   rather   rationalization   re   reaction   reaffirmation   recommendations   regard   regarding   regional   regions   regulation   regulatory   relationship   rely   relying   reminiscent   repeatedly   replacing   resources   respond   result   results   reti   reuse   revival   riconosceva   righe   rise   role   same   Sapeva   sarebbe   scarsi   schemes   Schumpeterian   scienziato   scope   scrisse   secolo   second   section   sector   Security   see   services   sharing   short   show   showing   significantly   Since   situate   sketching   society   socio   Sola   solely   some   somewhat   sovereignty   sparked   spectrum   stampa   Starr   started   state   Stati   still   storiche   storici   strongly   structure   study   subversive   succede   such   suggest   surveillance   surveyed   systematically   take   taking   technical   technocracy   technological   technologies   technology   tecniche   tecnici   tecnologia   tecnologie   telecom   telecommunications   telecoms   telecomunicazioni   telefoniche   tendenze   tens   than   that   their   then   these   they   They   thinkers   third   this   This   those   though   thousands   threat   threats   through   to   Today   together   too   traditional   traduzione   turn   ultima   underlying   understanding   undertaken   Union   Uniti   use   used   users   various   vendors   ventesimo   We   we   when   which   While   who   Wi   Wireless   with   works   Wu   years  

Nascondi questo messaggio

Italiano English
Modifica History Actions

SPWCN/Intro

Le sedi di Ninux sono:

a Roma presso il FusoLab

  • Fusolab

a Pisa all'EigenLab

  • Eingelab

a Cosenza presso la sede dell'Hacklab Cosenza

  • HLCS

a Catanzaro presso la sede dell'Hacklab Catanzaro

  • HLCZ

a Firenze presso l'exfila

  • exfila

a Bologna presso il makerspace di RaspiBO

  • NinuxBO

Ninux.org partecipa al World IPv6 day

  • WorldIpv6Day

/!\ traduzione in corso by Clauz /!\

"La libertà è incoraggiata quando i mezzi di comunicazione sono diffusi, decentralizzati e disponibili, come lo sono le macchine da stampa e i microcomputer. Il controllo centralizzato è più probabile quando i mezzi di comunicazione sono concentrati, monopolizzati e scarsi, come succede per i grandi network" (Sola Pool 1983, p. 5)

Ithiel de Sola Pool, uno scienziato politico americano ed analista legale delle tecnologie di comunicazione, scrisse queste righe nel 1984. Ma mentre riconosceva le tendenze storiche e tecniche, Sola Pool capiva anche che non c'era niente di deterministico nel modo in cui le tecnologie evolvono. Sapeva che il controllo su macchine da stampa e microcomputer sarebbe potuto diventare altamente centralizzato, ed era cosciente di precedenti storici quali le reti telefoniche costruite dal basso negli Stati Uniti all'inizio del ventesimo secolo, dove la costruzione e la gestione delle reti di telecomunicazioni furono non più appannaggio di potenti corporation o Stati ed attraversarono un processo di decentralizzazione radicale (Starr 2004, p. 203). Le politiche sulla tecnologia possono essere determinate in ultima istanza dalla loro politica economica, ovvero quanto sono distribuiti i mezzi per produrre ed utilizzare tecnologie di comunicazione, ma in effetti questo dipende da una combinazione di fattori politici, tecnici, economici, istituzionali o legali.

For all these contingencies, the baseline argument of Sola Pool and other acute political thinkers of media technologies is that the key to a free and more democratic society, then, comes down to a rather binary antagonism between decentralization/freedom and centralization/control in communications resources. Today, this antagonism plays a key role in understanding the politics of the Internet. We see it at play in the still-ongoing controversy regarding the massive information surveillance undertaken by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and its allied organizations. The privacy threats raised by centralized communications architectures is pushing a growing number of technology activists to respond by deploying decentralized and free software alternatives to the centralized online services known to collaborate with the NSA.

The same process has happened repeatedly in the Internet’s short history. The quest for more democratic communications resources has in fact driven the development of the Internet. Forty years ago, the rise of the personal computer and the creation of early-Internet protocols came out of a need to democratize computing technologies by taking them out of the hands of technocracy—decentralizing both the use of computers and the control of communication technologies. Later, in the 1980s, the free software movement emerged as an attempt to alleviate the threat that proprietary software vendors created for the ecosystem of innovation. Likewise, in the early 2000s, the control exerted by a few large media conglomerates over the circulation of copyrighted works sparked a counter-reaction on the part of activists, lawyers and librarians to establish an alternative, more participative and democratic regulatory framework through the creation of the ‘Creative Commons’ licenses in order to encourage the dissemination and reuse of digital works.

The history of communication technologies is populated with such conflicts between centralization and decentralization. While many of these technologies started or have existed at some point of their development as a decentralized structure, often replacing older technological paradigms following a Schumpeterian process of ‘creative-destruction’, nearly all progressively evolved into concentrated clusters of power as a result of industrialization and the reaffirmation of state sovereignty (Wu 2010). However, as the examples above suggest, when the oppressive potential of centralized technologies becomes clear and when the needs of citizens turn out to be systematically overlooked in existing power dynamics, decentralized initiatives may emerge as an attempt to disrupt the dominant hegemony and allow for the democratic re-appropriation of technology—a process that the philosopher Andrew Feenberg calls ‘subversive rationalization’ (Feenberg 1995).

In this paper, we focus on an ongoing—though too often neglected—phenomenon of decentralization in telecommunications networks: we show how the current revival of grassroots community networks can counterbalance the erosion of autonomy of Internet users that results from current telecom policies. As opposed to more larger and centralized network infrastructures owned and managed by powerful third parties (such as the state or large, highly capitalized Internet Service Providers (ISPs)), grassroots community networks are deployed by the community and for the community at the local or regional level. Rather than being driven by profits, they focus on the actual needs of the needs of its participants. They also experiment with novel models of distributed governance relying on cooperation and sharing among a community of peers (from a dozen to tens of thousands participants), and that are reminiscent of commons-based peer production schemes (Benkler 2006).

In our study, we focus on ‘Wireless Community Networks’ (WCN) (i.e those community networks providing connectivity through radio technologies, and Wi-Fi especially). While many community networks do not rely on radio technologies, those who do exhibit particular features that contrast more strongly from the dominant model found in traditional ISPs. In particular, to the extent that they rely solely and exclusively on free-to-use airwaves (or ‘spectrum commons’), WCN are to some extent more independent from incumbent ISPs than landline community networks who necessarily have to enter into a contractual relationship with the owners of the ‘last-mile’ landline network infrastructure.

We also take a somewhat narrow geographical and jurisdictional scope, focusing on European community networks (though we also illustrate our developments with examples from other regions). Since the early days of the Internet, Europe has been a fertile ground for the development of community networks, and many (though not all) of the groups we surveyed are based in Europe. Given our goal to contextualize WCN in the history of telecom policy, we have also used the telecom regulatory framework of the European Union (EU) as a background picture on which to situate WCN and from which to draw various legal and policy analysis.

The paper begins by sketching out a short history of telecoms policy, pointing to the prejudicial consequences of centralisation from a political perspective by showing how incumbent ISPs turn into network gatekeepers and foster their commercial interests by exerting greater control over users’ communications. Based on our fieldwork and qualitative interviews, our paper then moves on to describing WCN, presenting the main characteristics of these grassroots attempts at bringing about a ‘subversive rationalization’ of the last-mile network infrastructure. This second section outlines the motivations underlying the deployment of WCN, together with their technical features and innovative, commons-based models of governance, which all strongly contrast with the dominant, commercial model for Internet access provision. The third and last section assesses the impact of WCN on telecom regulation and the new power dynamics it entails, with regard to both the private sector and the public sector. The paper concludes that current telecoms regulation significantly overlooks the contribution of community networks to fostering political and socio-economic objectives associated with broadband policy and proposes a number of policy recommendations to overcome this gap.

l'ultima modifica è del 2015-03-01 11:38:33, fatta da ClauzClauz