A subject I've been passionate about for some time is the issue of universal access to the Internet. By this I refer not just to the actual connection, but also the social infrastructure that allows for intelligent use.
Recently President-elect Barack Obama reiterated his committment to ensure that all Americans have high-speed access to the Internet, and while here in Canada our urban centres are well connected, many of our rural communities are not.
What has always frustrated me about this issue is the techno-centric approach that government policy and advocates have focused on. The idea that the Internet is just a series of tubes is something that is easy to laugh at, yet it accurately reflects the utilitarian culture we ascribe to it.
I always couple culture with technology in the same light as political economy, and what access strategies generally lack is a focus on education, literacy, and creating local capcity to maintain the infrastructure required to get communities connected.
There's a chicken and egg scenario with rural broadband access in which companies are unwilling to invest unless there is demand and yet the demand may not exist due to a lack of awareness.
Similarly I think there's a need to grow your own Internet, invest in local infrastructure, and create the demand from the inside out.
Imagine an Internet that wasn't controlled by powerful cable or telephone companies but instead was a patchwork of locally rolled networks that empower communities to buy bandwidth in bulk and ensure net neutrality for their citizens.
The Internet is full of potential but so far has rarely lived up to its many promises. Part of the problem is community empowerment is assumed rather than encouraged. Government programs tend to favour big companies rather than the public interest.
This is not to say that there aren't community organizations working to counter this, providing services to their communities, both technical and cultural.
Instead as a society we're not focusing on the right solutions, fetishizing new technology instead of encouraging the development of social infrastructure.
I find it ironic and a bit depressing that even as social media is ascendent we still fail to see the social side of technology and the need for community development to be interwoven with affordable and universal access to high speed internet.
My solution would be to encourage a type of grassroots development that saw the local ownership of Internet infrastructure combined with the development and distribution of skills to maintain and grow this local network.
How would it work?
You suggested: "a patchwork of locally rolled networks that empower communities to buy bandwidth in bulk"
Can you explain how this would work?
the key would be in the peering
Hey Paul,
It could and does work in a number of ways, but I'll paint a few quick scenarios.
Wireless is the easiest example, a mesh network that combines a few hundred or a few thousand home access points into a resilient network. If I were the Minister I'd give out free wireless routers to people that had the software installed and configured to make this network happen automatically. All people would have to do is supply the electricity. In exchange they get free bandwidth. While there are costs involved in terms of connecting outside of this mesh network, there are also policy and cultural opportunities to foster local networking and media sharing on this mesh network.
With fibre optics on the other hand people could start by wiring up their own homes and their own properties, and then connecting to their neighbours and communities and so on. Initially you only have fast speeds between each other, but as communities connect there's more things to share and ability to pool other bandwidth and connectivity.
The idea is to reverse the current ethic of Internet connectivity and return to the roots of connecting one network at a time and focusing on the local before the global.
governments paying for grassroots network a little dangerous?
I love the idea of homegrown mesh networks...
you raise a valid point that given all of the locally owned hardware there is no reason that these networks could not organically evolve...
I'm a little concerned about the Ministry giving away the free hardware, I'm not sure the government should be replacing consumers as the purchasers of routers for their homes. Sounds like just another opportunity for government favoritism for a specific set of vendors...
also, I get a little worried that every time the government gets involved directly in subsidizing a specific economic model you are in effect “locking” in that model. It's much more difficult for that next great idea to get introduced, because now you have a government regulation in the way and we all know how easy they are to change...
surely there's a way for somebody in the private sector to invest in this model and gain some kind of sustainable profit for doing so?
There also has to be a better way for the government to get involved and to encourage consumers than by directly buying hardware... (education, charity points, access to specific services, granting a specific responsibilities, etc.)
Perhaps the subject of a different thread but IMHO government should be using more sophisticated inducements perhaps leveraging techniques that are clearly successful in open source and public wiki communities than simply giving away cash or products...
flexibility is the key
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for your comment, and I agree with your sentiments in terms of the glacial pace of government programs that effectively lock-in technology and business models.
I'm becoming kind of cynical however when it comes to solutions from the private sector. I find they tend to be equally patronizing, or too small to gain enough traction.
Perhaps as you suggest there is some sort of middle ground with government providing public education and companies given the help or even subsidies needed to engage in this type of social economic activity.
Where my frustration pushes me however is to imagine and articulate a new type of responsiveness and flexibility when it comes to government programs. I do feel there is a place for public institutions and leadership when it comes to government policies. While I'd be fine with the private sector providing a solution, I find it more fun to hypothesize on a solution coming from the public sector. :)
Post new comment