[http://static.flickr.com/25/66007019_2c2dedcccd.jpg] Photo of David Reed, David Ellerman, Anne-Marie Bellavance at Boston Workshop courtesy [Doc Searls | http://www.searls.com/] At the recent [Boston Uplift Academy Workshop | http://www.omidyar.net/group/netchange/ws/boston/] I was talking with [David Reed | http://www.media.mit.edu/people/bio_dpreed.html] about his frustration with working with the FCC and their regulation of the airwaves. Their model is to presume that we have a scarce spectrum to allocate: KPBS in San Diego owns 89.5 mhz for a given broadcast area, for example. However, with modern technology, we don't have to pre-allocate and slice up the spectrum in this manner. Akin to cell phone technology, communications can be designed to operate on many frequencies simultaneously, adapting to local conditions. Smaller cells would allow greater capacity. In other words, the FCC is imposing a model of scarcity on what in reality can be a network of abundance. It is our pre-defined categorization of the problem of scarce spectrum allocation that is keeping us from having a network of abundance. I think a similar situation exists in our current model of philanthropy and humanitarian activities. We begin with a model of scarcity and an associated taxonomy, assuming that we have too many problems and not enough money. This assumption then blocks our ability to see the value created by a network of abundance. For example, the [Copenhagen Consensus |http://www.munnecke.com/blog/archives/2004_06.html#000161] was a kind of ersatz beauty contest for world problems. The 10 top problems of the world were paraded before a panel of judges, each seeking to be ranked the world's worst problem. These were real problems, and did need real solutions. But what about systemic issues that could make the world a better place? What if we reframed the question to, "What can we do to connect 6 billion people to work together to make the world a better place?" Maybe we need a Net Abundance Newsfeed. This newsfeed would collect stories and web site information about activities that support this network abundance model. This activities may fly under the radar screen of most "transactional" systems. We would be looking for the scalable small things that could make a difference, even if they are not supported by intermediaries. This would also give us insight into the Flow of Abundance... ways of seeing and understanding what is transformational in our networked interaction. See also David Reed's work at MIT's [Viral Communications Laboratory| http://dl.media.mit.edu/viral/], particularly his paper on [Viral Communications|: http://dl.media.mit.edu/viral/viral.pdf]. He is writing specifically about electronic communications networks, but the same ideas can be applied to social or electronic networks of uplift. [And here is more on Reed's ideas|http://upliftacademy.org/reed]