Aaron the Librarian

Came across a link to a post on SaveTheInternet.com which links to a report that debunks Telco-created myths about why U.S. Telcos cannot and should not be encouraged [forced if necessary, imho] to keep the U.S. Internet connections as fast as the very top countries of the world.  The U.S. has slipped in connectivity speed, from 4th in 2001 to 12th in 2006 to 15th in July 2007.  (insert telco whines: U.S. consumer-base too geographically dispersed, etc)In case you didn’t already know, policymakers (with encouragement of telco shills) tend to ignore the research and challenge the methodologies used to collect data or interpret research findings.  Having personally seen this in action (TNDF flashback, see background below) at the state-level, I can attest that though many times the accounts of lobbyists and their questionable practices seem shrill or unbelievable, they do happen pretty much as described.

We, the people, need to get on our elected representatives, appointed functionaries, and faceless bureaucrats respective cases and push for what is currently called “Net Neutrality” to avoid enabling the current duopoly (Telecommunications and Cable Companies) to charge for preferential internet-traffic delivery.  Legislation was afoot which would affect how U.S. consumers and service providers were charged for timely and speedy connections to Internet content and/or infrastructure.

SaveTheInternet is a coalition with occasionally strange bedfellows - just about every political stripe is represented in their full membership list.  If TNDF were still active today, we would likely be a part of the coalition.

[Background info referred to above]
One of the reasons I got involved with ALA’s Office for Information Technology Policy (via the OITP Advisory Committee) was my prior experience with Telcos trying to put one over on consumers.  I am a co-founder of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network (TNDF.net) which was active from April 2003 through late 2004.  TNDF, which sadly saw a significant decline in member activity after our success during the 2003 legislative session, was instrumental in derailing the S-DMCA attempt in Tennessee in 2003 and worked with several large partners in 2004, altering the language of the bill to be less intrusive and restrictive on the end-user.

OITP coordinated the grant (funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) for the Public Libraries and the Internet study, which is performed by the FSU Information Institute.   The study revealed that >98% of Public Libraries are now connected to the internet in some fashion; however, as this project has evolved, the questions this year turned more to the “quality” of the connection (i.e. how phat are libraries’ pipes) and how well do these pipes provide adequate access to libraries’ patrons/customers/users.  Long story short, many public libraries which are part of state-wide consortia or take advantage of E-Rate funding have okay-to-good connections, but many others have generic cable out-of-the-box connections (768kps - 1.5 MBps “Broadband”) and there are still libraries which can only get dialup access (<768kps).

Hey all us Voyager Libraries out there, our friends at Villanova’s Falvey Library just GPL’d their code for their PILOT replacement, VuFind.  This looks great to me, though I don’t have access to the required tools and applications from the documentation on any university servers.

• Apache HTTP Server 2.2 or later
• PHP 5.1.0 or later
• MySQL 4.1 or later
• Java J2SE JDK 1.4 or later
• YAZ 3.0 or later

Anyone in KLN-land have access to all that, some extra disk space, and a hankering to try a consolidated catalog search with facetted browse functionality?  Anyone with a different ILS want to help extend VuFind to your vendor?  The project is looking for help in this area.

From reading Radar O’Reilly today:

Since 1995 the trend in academic libraries for reference queries per FTE and total circulation per FTE is steeply downward. Reference Queries per FTE average out to half of what they did in 1995 and total circulations average out to approximately two-thirds of 1995.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/if_libraries_ha.html

The reference queries to FTE may indicate a broader trend of “not wanting to ask for help;” stemming, I believe (with no data), from the often false assumptions of “I’m okay, I can do this” which are engendered in the current practice of reassurance that kids are okay and can do it during early schooling.

The circulation numbers seem to be from only traditional physical circulations? No mention of electronic resource usage is made. Experientially, I see lots more online accessing of stuff than I do physical items. But I’d love to see more data on this. How much of this kind of aggregated data do you or your library keep?

Since I’m thinking about joining the ranks for the PhD’s, maybe I should save up these questions…

While doing something else at work, came across a SOLINET Planning Committee discussion scenarios(.pdf) and report(.pdf).  As a former employee of a SOLINET library and curious about library management trends person, I clicked through to see what’s on the horizon at the consortia level.

Short-term forecast of what’s happening in libraryland:

• Service model Changing, refocusing on customer service rather than dead-tree repository
• Collection roles Changing to [ just in time / on demand ] instead of just in case
• Staff Transforming to active and service oriented from passive and reacting
• Building Re-purposing to [ multi-purpose / community use ] from dead-tree repository
• Assessment Increasing to better ’splain why the library is needed and what the ROI is for a given community
• Technology [ Control/Timeliness ] to improve services provided and educate community on technology and how to use it

Pages 3-6 of the report(.pdf) detail what the library community should be prepared to learn / know in the next 3-5 years.  The ideas and recommendations are presented with the weight and authority of a Library Consortium, which will hopefully get less-Cluetrained library managers to pay attention and start listening to patrons and staffers who want to move their libraries forward.

Very little of the specifics supplied by the LITA Showcase are listed, but general areas covered by those showcased technologies are mentioned in a broad sense.  The question, as always, is how to get entrenched library interests to accept and apply technologies their changing pieces of librarianship need to move forward and stay relevant to (potential and current) library users?

I was late to this, because I dropped “Girl Scout the younger” at GS day camp on the way to DC.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
9:00 - 4:00pm
Washington Convention Center, Room 147 A/B
Agenda

9:00-9:30 Welcome and introduction
Lynne Bradley, Director, ALA/OGR
Rick Weingarten, Director, ALA/OITP
Michael Dowling, Director, ALA Chapter Relations

9:30-12:00 Issues exploration
Christopher McLean, e-Copernicus
John Windhausen, Telepoly

—I arrived here—

Mark Lloyd, Center for American Progress

Mark was speaking about the necessity of urban library support for the rural libraries provisions in this year’s Farm Bill. Please say to your Senators and Representatives: “Please support the rural library provisions in this year’s Farm Bill.”
12:00-1:00 lunch and keynote
Gloria Tristani, Spiegel & McDiarmid (former FCC Commissioner)

Gloria spoke about the importance of sufficient bandwidth for public libraries, wherever they are. She spoke about ALA WO efforts to simplify the E-rate for libraries, modify “poverty calculations” to bring libraries into parity with school districts and respond to “Notices of Inquiry” from the FCC.

(I got to review three Telcom-related responses in my positions on the OITP Advisory Committee or the OITP/COL Telcom Subcommittee)

Though FCC comment periods may say they are “closed,” if you have a comment you should send it in anyway (up until a decision is made). Grassroots advocacy and grassroots comments count with the FCC when they come in significant numbers.

While we are all here in DC, we should take the opportunity to drop in on the FCC Commissioners — we are competing with many other players and a massive drop by of interested parties. Take the time to have a few relevant statistics about library connectivity to hand and encourage the FCC. Wisconsin specific data here for example.

1:00-2:30 Broadband deployment models that work

Bob Bocher Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Described development of BadgerNet and follow-on departments. Partners: between state gov’t, K-20, libraries, tribes, telcos. Funding: costs are “postalized” same cost anywhere — benefits rurals *big time* T-1=~$100/month, higher=~$250/month. Centralized purchase of access and divvied internally. Services: Video distance Ed, 24/7/365 Tech Support. Statewide VoIP soon, internet via WiSCnet, shared ILS in ~90% of WI libraries for resource sharing etc. Challenges: WAN circuts insufficient, State USF has had 6 years of no growth, Web 2.0 interactions loading network, working to improve funding, general sys admin stuff (security, spam, remote mgmt, etc) Success because: strong state network office, strong legislative and executive support, governor support, collaboraive environment (inclusive), state-wide funding of connections.

Steven Hedges OPLIN

Discussed Ohio’s path to a working state-wide network INFOhio, OSCnet, OhioLink, MORE. OPLIN also provides “postalized” pricing, same anywhere. All 3 agencies are now working together as Libraries Connect Ohio.
Policy issues about funding of bandwidth for gaming may crop up if legislators ask about what kinds of trafic are being funded.

William Giddings MOREnet

MOREnet started in 1986, REAL started in 1994, now 131 libraries with 107 branches. Connection depends on tax revenues for service area — you get the connection speeds you need (smaller libraries pay ~$300/year, largest pays ~$12,000 per year) no questions asked. T-1 to 45 MBps. Partners: Governor, State library, Dept of Ed, Dept of Higher Ed, U Missouri One network to rule them all (wait, no, There can be only one) in Missouri. Funding: Dept of Higehr Ed, Sec of State via State Library, participant fees, E-rate reimbursements. Services: Network Svcs, Video, Securoty, Resources, Training, more Challenges: growing demand for bandwidth, term limits, site visits by MOREnet (to keep issues tied to local issues), Techies resistant to loosening local control Successful because: Shared Leadership, program manager, single state-wide network, level playing field, public procurement.

Andrew McNeill Connect Kentucky

Am having a hard time note-taking (handout being read out loud), will have to scan & post the handout (sorry)

2:30-4:00 You can do it! Concrete approaches to tackling the most important telecommunications issues at the state level

Find out what is important to the person to whom you’re speaking.
Find solid examples to support what you’re saying.
Find a compelling story to share.
“Fiber to the Library” will also benefit the local community, nearby businesses, students doing homework. This initiative (or it should be an initiative) may be a great way to get fiber to the home rolled out. I think the Rural Libraries provisions in this year’s Farm Bill may have more on funding this?
Aim to get something scalable without huge new capital outlay

See ALA WO / Public Libraries and the Internet 2006: Study Results and Findings handout for more suggestions.
Quotes:

• “We are what we share” (from Jessamyn on Twitter earlier today) seems very appropriate.
• Way to think about libraries and information technology: “Libraries: Universal Service Providers” (quote from Nancy Kranich)

It’s always fun to watch the fur fly, maybe that’s why this quote by Michael Gorman on the Britannica Blog made me grin:

[Gorman summarizes the history of intellectual property development and then says:] “There is today a concerted and multifront assault on copyright spurred by monied interests and the desire of consumers to use digital technology to get something for nothing. This assault has created a mindset that sees the notion of intellectual property as a barrier to progress rather than what it is—an affirmation of the singularity of the human intellect and personality.”

I see the “…assault on copyright … and the desire of consumers to use digital technology…” as a backlash against the ever-lengthening term (as lobbied for by commercial content producers) of copyright from the originally codified in US term of 14 + 14 years. Up to 28 years of virtual monopoly on the use of an expression of an idea was deemed plenty of time for exploitation of an expression/creation by its creator. At some point an individual’s “intellectual property” (which is used as a crass conflation of several distinct concepts: copyright, trademarks, and patents - among others) has been disseminated to the point where the individual’s right to the idea has diffused to the public domain.

The increasing length of copyright terms — from 14 years plus a 14 year extension in 1790, to 28 years plus a 14 year extension in 1831, to to life of the author plus 50 years or works for hire for 75 years with specific, codified fair-use provisions in 1976, to the Sonny Bono act in 1998 which extended copyright to life of the author plus 70 years — is a burden which the Public Domain cannot bear. I fail to see how life plus 70 years encourages a creator to produce new works; this term of “protection” seems to encourage resting in one’s laurels after producing a magnum opus or bestseller instead of encouraging continued creation of new works which could be better than the last.

As currently practiced under the law, intellectual property *is* a barrier to progress. Seemingly because Steamboat Willie was a smash hit in the roaring twenties. Copyright was originally enacted to encourage learning, prevent booksellers from monopolizing books and the sale of books, allow authors some control over their works, create a public domain for literature, and give the purchaser of a book control over what s/he could do with the purchased item. There was no overarching “affirmation of the singularity of the human intellect and personality” involved - no matter how good the rhetoric sounds.

Lastly, speaking to the accusation: “desire of consumers to use digital technology to get something for nothing,” I, and most digital technology consumers, are not out to get “something for nothing” while using our digital technology. We are out to make sure the items we purchased with our money are usable in whatever appliance we choose to use for our enjoyment. If I buy a standard $0.99 song from iTunes (not likely, as I generally only listen to whatever is on the radio) and want to listen to that song on a Linux-based computer, I would have to (illegally, in current practice) break the DRM in order to make use of an item I purchased and should be able to use on whatever device I prefer.

The consumer should be the ultimate decider of how to use their legally acquired products.

Thanks to the Disruptive Library Technology Jester I just learned about HitchHikr (I feel soo behind the times!)

There is a HitchHikr Page for the ALA 2007 Annual Conference with some on- & some off-topic posts and pix already in there.  For those of us wanting easy updates, an RSS feed would be a nice feature to add for HitchHikr (I didn’t find one available)

As I Twitter’d earlier, I just watched a YouTube video from TEDtalks by Hans Rosling which forwarded me on to the Gapminder Google Tool, a mashup of UN and other public data sources to make really easily understandable [and amazing] graphs of comparative world data.

Here’s the link to the [20 minute long] YouTube video

Here’s the link to the GapMinder Google Tool

Play with the data in GapMinder, I think this resource would be a fabulous source for data display in any number of subject areas (though I didn’t search for the citations of the datasets). I’m thinking about contacting professors in Poli-Sci, Business, International Studies, etc. to ask for their comments and how they think it might be useful for their students. If you think of other subject areas that might find this type of thing useful, let me know.

Saw this article, The public library as an asylum for the homeless, a few days ago in my Bloglines current awareness feeds.

From my days as a librarian in public libraries (Chattanooga (1996-1997) & (Brooklyn (1995)) and as library technical assistant (NYPL Research Library on 42nd & 5th (1991-1993)  I can say that the homeless situation is not really a “new” phenominon.  While I was more aware of the less-than-mentally-healthy people when I wasn’t in NYC, we had plenty of patrons in all three public libraries that I watched pretty closely — my attitude adjustment specialist job history meant I was usually in “bouncer mode” when certian patrons came in just in case an incident occurred.

If you have not read (and told people about) this article, I encourage you to spread the word about how libraries have taken on a social support safety net role in communities which, if they go away, will leave many poorly served, needy people without any help at all.  Yes, that is a plaintive bleat; but it’s nonetheless true.

Ah, more good stuff on the network presmissions front…

I now have access to our shared network drive, took a lot of today to meader through to see what’s out there. Lots of stuff, though about half looks a bit dated (which is okay, since there is new stuff too).

Not much in my baliwick, but I do note that I don’t really understand teh organization schema. Okay, I note “Data” folder is more structured. Hrm… this will take a while to absorb. (on top of all the other stuff I’m doing or will be doing - good thing I’m not busy (hah!))