從 Charlesc 的 blog :Doesn’t Fly. Nobody Comes. Woe.上讀到,紐約時報 Technology 專欄 What if They Built an Urban Wireless Network and Hardly Anyone Used It? 報導了沒有太多人使用的台北 WiFly 無線網路。這件事情在 Wireless Internet Institute, W2i 於台北所舉辦的數位城市研討會(Digital Cities Convention)大會前讀到,實在讓人覺得有點…公關災難(PR disaster)的感覺。

Despite WiFly’s ubiquity — with 4,100 hot spot access points reaching 90 percent of the population — just 40,000 of Taipei’s 2.6 million residents have agreed to pay for the service since January. Q-Ware, the local Internet provider that built and runs the network, once expected to have 250,000 subscribers by the end of the year, but it has lowered that target to 200,000.

That such a vast and reasonably priced wireless network has attracted so few users in an otherwise tech-hungry metropolis should give pause to civic leaders in Chicago, Philadelphia and dozens of other American cities that are building wireless networks of their own.

Like Taipei, these cities hope to use their new networks to help less affluent people get online and to make their cities more business-friendly. Yet as Taipei has found out, just building a citywide network does not guarantee that people will use it. Most people already have plenty of access to the Internet in their offices and at home, while wireless data services let them get online anywhere using phones, laptops and P.D.A.’s.

就像水鳥君說的,台灣經驗被拿來給芝加哥、費城當作借鏡,真是一件蠻有趣的事情。….

“There is a lot of hype about public access,” said Craig J. Settles, a technology consultant in Oakland, Calif., and author of “Fighting the Good Fight for Municipal Wireless.” “What’s missing from a lot of these discussions is what people are willing to pay for.”

如果你不問到底民眾願意為啥付出上網的代價,架設一個基礎建設只會落得無人搭理的下場(或者很久以後才有人搭理的窘境)。試想:有多少立委與民間團體磨刀霍霍要修理蚊子公園、蚊子活動中心,倘若這個無線城市的美夢最後破掉,蚊子無線城市會面對多少排山倒海來的、合理或不合理的質疑與挑戰?

如果就像馬市長在訪問中所說的,關鍵問題在商業模式的話,我覺得未必是沒有商業模式導致今天的窘境。參與的廠商們從一開始就在討論商業模式。市政府辛勞的規劃者與創新的發動者,他們也反覆在檢討要怎麼推動、並且跟廠商角力全面鋪設的優先順序。但是不得不讓人扼腕的,是這個無線的基礎建設到底有多底層?需要幾層向上銜接才有辦法觸碰到人們的日常生活,觸及真正的內容生活(content life / live)?今天的定價策略與推動策略,可能才是這個無線城市目前無人進駐的真正原因。

也就是說,我們不缺商業模式。但是我們缺乏一個讓各種不同層(multi-layered)的商業模式可以不斷演化、更新的生態圈。在這當中,我們也缺乏對全新人造公共領域的想像。我們不缺乏有耐心的善意公僕幫我們爭取公平的資源配置,但是我們真正要架設一個數位城市時,我們缺領路人。我們沒有一個全職、專心思考作這些基礎建設之後,要把台北帶往何處去的領航者。

沒有駕駛員,只有一堆硬體線路與昂貴的軟體,飛機是飛不起來的。

Updated:感謝 zhyz,已經修改部份翻譯內容(以紅字標出)。

電動遊戲文化(video game culture,另譯為電腦遊戲文化)的核心美德是完美地主宰(mastery)與自我駕馭(self-control):前者在於掌控電動遊戲所需求的技術技能,後者著重於手動控制的敏捷性。長時間的重複操作與失敗,對於掌控遊戲來說是必要的磨練,而其同時也要求玩家懂得規訓(discipline)的重要性,以及練習達到與超越自我設定目標的能力。大部份當代的電動遊戲都是冷酷無情、與目標導向的遊戲。男孩子會常常玩這些遊戲,努力要掌控那具有挑戰性的一關又一關,直到體力與情緒耗盡為止。孩子們並不是那麼地對電動遊戲上癮,而是在達到設定目標之前他們不願意退出遊戲。遊戲總是有新的挑戰目標,邀請我們挑戰「另外一關」、期待表現的更好。當代電動遊戲的其中一種限制就是,它僅僅提供著「預先結構化的互動形式」(pre-structured forms of interactivity),而某種程度來說,就像是小孩子的遊戲場或都市中的公園一樣,並不像是真正的荒野野地。大部份時候,遊戲玩家只能夠利用內建環境的可用特性(affordances,另譯為「功能可見性」、「機緣」、「可用性」)與預先設計好的路徑。所謂的密技、復活節蛋之類的驚喜與「特異時空」(warp zones)在數位空間中的作用,就像實體空間中的神秘小徑一樣,讓想要去到特別的地方、看到一般人看不到的東西的熱切玩家們,迫不急待地找尋。

The central virtues of video game culture are mastery (over the technical skills required by the games) and self-control (manual dexterity). Putting in the long hours of repetition and failure necessary to master a game also requires discipline and the ability to meet and surpass self-imposed goals. Most contemporary video games are ruthlessly goal-driven. Boys will often play the games, struggling to master a challenging level, well past the point of physical and emotional exhaustion. Children are not so much “addicted” to video games as they are unwilling to quit before they have met their goals, and the games seem to always set new goalposts, inviting us to best “just one more level.” One of the limitations of the contemporary video game is that it provides only pre-structured forms of interactivity, and in that sense, video games are more like playgrounds and city parks rather than wild-spaces. For the most part, video game players can only exploit built-in affordances and pre-programed pathways. “Secret codes,” “Easter Eggs,” and “Warp zones” function in digital space like secret paths do in physical space and are eagerly sought by gamers who want to go places and see things others can’t find.

移動的全然自由:電動遊戲作為一種性別差異的遊戲空間〉(Complete Freedom of Movement: video games as gendered play spaces) ,作者是 MIT 比較媒體研究的 Henry Jenkins 教授。

最近有許多書的資訊,實在讓人心動不已。

Richard Barbrook,Westminster 大學教授、Cybersalon、《加州意識形態》(Califorian Ideology)的作者,由英國倫敦的 OpenMute 出版了新書:《新之階級》(The Class of the New)。介紹如下:

“Netizens, elancers, cognitarians, swarm-capitalists, hackers, produsumers, knowledge workers, pro-ams… these are just a few of the monikers that have been applied to the new social class emerging from the networked workplace.

In this short book, Richard Barbrook presents a collection of quotations from authors who in different ways attempt to identify an innovative element within society ? the class of the new?. Announcing
a new economic and social paradigm, this class constitutes a social prophecy of the shape of work to come. From Adam Smith?s Philosophers of the late 18th century, down to the Creative Class
celebrated by sociologist Richard Florida today, the class of the new represents the future of production within and beyond capitalism.

A Creative Workers in a World City project. Published, POD (print on demand) design and production by Openmute. ISBN: 0-9550664-7-6

在巴塞隆納實習的 Acer 捎來耶魯法學院的 Yochai Benkler 最近新書消息:《網路的財富:社會生產如何轉換市場與自由》(The Wealth of Networks : How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom)。

“With the radical changes in information production that the Internet has introduced, we stand at an important moment of transition, says Yochai Benkler in this thought-provoking book. The phenomenon he describes as social production is reshaping markets, while at the same time offering new opportunities to enhance individual freedom, cultural diversity, political discourse, and justice. But these results are by no means inevitable: a systematic campaign to protect the entrenched industrial information economy of the last century threatens the promise of today’s emerging networked information environment.

In this comprehensive social theory of the Internet and the networked information economy, Benkler describes how patterns of information, knowledge, and cultural production are changing-and shows that the way information and knowledge are made available can either limit or enlarge the ways people can create and express themselves. He describes the range of legal and policy choices that confront us and maintains that there is much to be gained-or lost- by the decisions we make today.”

Yochai Benkler - Yale Law School, Publisher: Yale University Press (May 16, 2006), Language: English, ISBN: 0300110561.
http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf

6 月 22 日開始一連兩天,在台大地理環境資源學系舉辦 2006 國科會人文地理卓越營第三梯次(Advanced Workshop on Human Geography),由美國明尼蘇達大學地理系教授、專長於都市地理、政治地理與地理資訊系統與社會學等領域的Helga Leitner 教授舉辦講座與工作坊。講題包括:「對抗新自由主義」(Contesting Neoliberalism)、「談研究與發表」(How to get your research published)以及「學術研究的解甲 — 參與式及以社區為基礎的研究」(Unbounding academic research — Participatory and community based research)。報名方式請參考:http://www.geog.ntu.edu.tw/news/c_news.htm

有興趣的人可以參考看看 :)

最近讀 Fred 的 PChome 反垃圾行銷信件運動系列文章(最近一篇是〈公關危機的處理時機:回應tenz兄〉),實在覺得這是一個影響深遠的問題。Richy 有作圖表描述所有人總共付出多少代價(不過我覺得標題實在有夠像是公益廣告的,哈),Fred 很克制地用文明與文雅的方式在測試 PChome 部門危機處理的能力,在在都是很有深度與想法、精彩至極的網路文化論述。(有學者想要在課堂上整理與介紹這些攸關每個人資訊生活的切身問題與運動者的對話與思考嗎?)前陣子我在跟 b1s、p6g 討論典藏的一些公共資料庫的公共資料開放與意識形態問題時,也多少碰到該用激烈、還是緩慢卻深刻的方式來進行批判。我覺得我個人從 Fred、tenz 與各個網友對話的過程中有所撞擊與刺激,並且對於未來要推動相關議題時的作法有獲得啟發。

Will Harris 六月三日在 bit-tech.net 的專欄中,發表一篇很有意思的文章,我剛好覺得跟 PChome 同時推出 Portal 2.0 系列行銷活動與遭受反垃圾行銷信抵制有雙重的關聯。「Web2.0 將終結你的隱私嗎?」(Why Web 2.0 will end your privacy.)(我從 MichaelZimmer.org 讀到的,Thanks Michael!) Will Harris 丟出了一些問題,例如:為甚麼 MySpace.com 跟 Digg.com 吸到了那麼多的資金到位?答案是:資料。所有的互動、朋友資料。簡單地說,Will 認為現在 google 跟 yahoo 的賽跑,google 要用機器來搞定一切,yahoo! 則想透過人們所鍵入的資訊來捕捉住一切。所有人根據自己的競賽主軸,砸大錢來喚起創新,而這些創新將我們的更多社會資訊捲入其中。

等到 Web 2.0 的泡沫破掉的時候,創新的引擎吹響熄燈號,最後只剩下行銷的機器不斷地挖掘所有人們資料與資訊的礦山、生產關於利潤無盡的慾望與各種奇妙衍生商品(這不是 Will Harris 說的)。

(有興趣翻譯的朋友可以來譯寫一下 :D)

後記:有另外一篇討論 2.0 與隱私的文章,請看:Why…. Will It Really?