Three Case Studies of Community WiFi Projects That Privileged Public Funding over Commons-Based Infrastructure
* Article: Common sense: An examination of three Los Angeles community WiFi projects that privileged public funding over commons-based infrastructure management. By Gwen Shaffer. Journal of Peer Production, Issue #10: Peer Production and Work, 2017
Summary
"At a time when internet access is increasingly perceived as a basic utility—on par with necessities such as water and electricity—the commercial market has failed to bring broadband to low-income, urban communities in the United States. Both the city of Los Angeles and the state of California have attempted to expand residential internet access by subsidizing community broadband networks. Specifically, local and state agencies provided a combined $700,000 in funding for three peer-to-peer broadband initiatives—Little Tokyo Unplugged; Open Mar Vista; and a cluster of mesh networks spearheaded by the non-profit Manchester Community Technologies. However, all three of these networks, which were located in geographically and ethnically diverse L.A. communities, proved unsustainable. In an effort to better understand the role played by government funding, this study examines each of these community broadband projects through both a commons and a public goods framework. Based on interviews with stakeholders, as well as on document analysis, the study found that as these L.A. community wireless networks sought to fulfil “public goods” obligations tied to financial awards, they neglected to include participants in efforts to design and maintain their projects. The findings suggest that government funding is an inadequate substitute for adhering to “principles of the commons” that traditionally sustain community broadband networks."
Excerpt
From the conclusion, by Gwen Shaffer:
"This research asked whether three Los Angeles community WiFi networks—Little Tokyo Unplugged, Open Mar Vista and Manchester Community Technologies—relinquished the ability to function as commons by accepting, or simply pursuing, grants and resources from public agencies. Interviews with key stakeholders, as well as a review of relevant documents, suggest the answer is yes. In exchange for government subsidies, these three community WiFi networks prioritized the public good goals articulated by policymakers—primarily, closing the digital divide in Los Angeles through infrastructure deployment. In order to fulfill promises made to granting agencies, these community WiFi networks had to treat wireless internet access as a commodity, rather than as a tool for community empowerment. Significantly, none of the networks developed a strategy to remain sustainable after public subsidies expired, or after government agencies rejected additional funding requests. Had these three L.A.-based community WiFi projects privileged a commons-based approach, they may have thrived. In a commons, communication systems are truly democratic—in the sense that community members themselves determine how the network is designed and deployed. Neither corporations nor policymakers get to influence those decisions. Little Tokyo Unplugged, Open Mar Vista and Manchester Community Technologies allowed institutional authority and financially driven decision-making to supplant the social-production principles that characterize a networked commons.
Public and private realms are defined not by natural law, but by “deliberate policy choices” (Kaul and Mendoza, 2003, p. 80). Therefore, it is certainly possible for community WiFi networks to partner with government agencies while continuing to manage infrastructure as a commons. City councils and municipal agencies provide funding, resources and even labor to Barcelona-based Guifi.net (De Fillippi and Tréguer, 2014; Shaffer, 2013), a network built on the ideals of free and neutral infrastructure. In 2010, the Detroit Digital Justice Coalition (2017) used a portion of its $1.8 million grant from the federal Broadband Technology Opportunities Program to launch community wireless networks in several neighborhoods. A guiding principle of this project is to “demystify technology to the point where we can not only use it, but create our own technologies and participate in the decisions that will shape communications infrastructure” (Detroit Digital Justice Coalition, 2017). In another example, Montreal’s community wireless network, Île Sans Fil, has benefitted from grants awarded by Heritage Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts, among other government agencies (Crow and Miller, 2007). The network remains solidly supported by volunteers. Ultimately, the success of a community wireless project does not depend on its source of funding, or even whether it obtains funding at all. Rather, sustainability depends on a project design guided by camaraderie and the basic human instinct to give to others (Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006)."