Local Control of Communications Networks as Open Systems
An abbreviated essay by Gareth Shearman and Garth Graham, of Telecommunities Canada.
Following is a slightly abbreviated version of an excellent essay:
Local Control of Communications Networks as Open Systems
by Gareth Shearman and Garth Graham, of Telecommunities Canada
(Reprinted from Liberating Voices! A Pattern Language for
Communication Revolution.)
http://diac.cpsr.org/cgi-bin/diac02/pattern.cgi/public?pattern_id=132
… now is the time to reconceptualize the Internet as critical
local infrastructure for the governance of connection. Now is the time
for local governments to accept responsibility for ensuring that this
particular public good continues to exist. In the 21st century, moving
bits is just as fundamental as moving people and cars. But the Internet
is different from other critical infrastructure, because the
cooperative dimensions of the essential Internet Protocol need to be
protected in the public interest. Getting that protection in place
begins from within community.
Broadband
We should base our definition in capacity to change technologies, not
in specific technical solutions. We cannot yet see the upper limits of
network capacity to connect. But, if our network infrastructure can
scale in parallel to growths in data transfer rates and the complexity
of networked applications, then we have broadband.
Local Ownership
Because control of a network (of the means by which IP affects the
place where we live) is inextricably bound up with capacity for
socio-economic development, municipalities cannot afford to wait on the
whims of external suppliers. The “market” will not give us the IP
network flexibility we need to keep moving forward. To ensure an
appropriate network infrastructure is created in a manner that protects
community needs, we must do it ourselves.
Broadband lessons learned make it clear that local ownership drives
economic development. Community-based approaches to control of local
communications infrastructure stimulate development from the bottom up,
increase social well-being, and improve government service delivery
among those groups least likely to have profited from digital
opportunities.
In an online world, our successes depend on cooperative linkages, and
on the way our community uses communications technologies to link to
outside producers and consumers that are important to us. If we own the
“last mile,” then our chances of making the interactive development
choices we face and learning from what results are better than if we
don’t.
Local ownership and governance of open-access broadband “backbones” as
public utilities are based on 4 principles:
• Autonomy of decisions to connect.
• IP is a public good that local governments must sustain.
• Focus on the uses of ICTs for development, not “technologies,”
• Public ownership of local networks can be structured to foster the
growth of local private enterprise.
Local Defense of IP’s Role
The key change driver in the current communications context is the
Internet, and in particular Internet Protocol, not
“telecommunications.” Much more than changes in processes, products and
services, IP is driving fundamental shifts in the way that things get
done. Local ownership of community-based open networks allows for IP to
live and breath.
IP itself is not an artifact. It’s a set of rules for codes about how
various digital communications capacities will work. All it does is
move packets of bits across routers acting as reciprocating peers. . At
any one moment, the constituent bits that make up its flow are the
result of millions of decisions to connect that occur at its
edges.
IP and its effects are in the public domain. To constrain the full
impact of IP is to enclose a common. It is the role of governments to
guarantee that the IP common remains open.
In IP, the choice to connect is an individual choice, not corporate. To
sustain the self-organization of networks, the Internet enhances the
autonomy of the individual to relate to other individuals without
reference to authority or to structures that purport to legitimize or
"represent" their choices. The growth and evolution of Internet use
continues because more people like the autonomy this gives them than do
not.
The power of IP comes from the capacity it gives us to spin webs of
significance through the choices we make about links. For new meanings,
new perceptions to emerge and survive, it is essential that our
decisions about connecting remain self-determined.
It is self-defeating for businesses to block our capacity to decide
what and where to place our live links among each other. When a market
is informed by peer-to-peer relationships then everyone in it is a
member. In a networked economy, every market is a community that
informs its decisions. There are no more customers. To imagine
consumers as passive receptacles of products and services is to ignore
the interactive roles we all play in networked systems of demand and
supply.
The self-organizing networks that IP was designed to sustain are
networks of people. We should not talk about governance “of” the
Internet. We should talk about governance “by” the Internet. We have to
begin telling politicians that the distributed structure of a society
that is online and an economy that is networked is a structure of
communities. In such a society, IP becomes a social contract about
collaborative relationships in which everyone acts as ”router” and as
“Universal Resource Locator.”
Open Access
The best means to stimulate local socio-economic development through
Internet use is by access to an open network utility where the rules of
play are the same for everyone. Networks reduce transaction costs. Open
access ensures we are doing enough for local businesses, organizations
and individuals to gain that advantage.
Just because we own the network doesn’t mean we have to operate it.
Operations can and should be outsourced. Public – private partnerships
are possible, even desirable, in the creation and operation of
essential local Internet infrastructure.
Open access creates a level playing field by separating:
• Construction and ownership of physical network infrastructure
• Network management (by contracting out when local authorities don’t
need those skills to reach objectives)
• Service providers (lowering the barriers to entry in local markets
for Internet service fairly, thus promoting growth and competition, and
generating revenue for both network owners and managers)
In such a utility, the better the service providers do, the better the
network operator does and the better the owner does. Both the operator
and the owner have incentives to encourage innovation and growth in
services. We create a local market for online goods and services where
the major benefits stay in our own economy.
Therefore:
Local Government Should Act to Control the Infrastructure of the Local
Internet Loop
The capacity of communities to make development choices is critical to
sustaining the open systems of a knowledge society. Local control of
the infrastructure of the local Internet loop supports that essential
autonomy. The price of universal access to technologies is not the
primary social issue. Because IP affects relationships, participation
in and effective use of networked social structures is the primary
social issue. Until they move to local control, local governments can’t
begin to make an impact on correcting negative social change as a
consequence of living daily life online. The actions needed to achieve
this result include:
• An approach to broadband communications use that can scale up
• Local network ownership
• Local government commitment to an open IP common.
• Design and operation of local networks as open access
References:
http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/gitts.html
http://www.canarie.ca/advnet/cen.html
http://www.cmon.ca/
http://www.folkstone.ca/broadband/broadband.html