Community Wireless:

Wireless Internet has been available since the late 1990’s, but has only recently emerged as a powerful tool for access in communities and cities at large. However, this has not gone unnoticed by parties that perceive a potential threat to the established order of Internet players. As the clash of interests grows, governments have been getting involved through policy and regulation to help bring balance to the social and economic issues. In this paper, the author attempts to put these issues in to a clearer perspective by summarizing the landscape as it pertains to wireless Internet access from the North American perspective.

With the advent of the IEEE 802.11 standard in the late 90s, the use of wireless Internet has become increasingly popular. As the technology becomes faster, smaller, and less expensive, wireless technology has entered workplaces, academic institutions, and even the average home. For many, the technology represents freedom from wires and cables that previously tied computers to their broadband or dial-up connections. The technology also represents the possibility for isolated or developing communities to leap-frog past the expensive cable laying requirements of wired service and instead, connect wirelessly. It is no wonder that wireless Internet is a rapidly evolving field that has broad reaching effects in both digital technology and social networking. However, with such ability for change, existing models of Internet deployment, connectivity, and technology are being tested and as these changes evolve for citizens, governments, and private enterprise challenges arise for policy and regulation as well.

The objective of this paper is to present a high-level overview of the various perspectives on policy and regulation with respect to wireless technology. In particular, this paper will look at three important perspectives in wireless Internet. One perspective will be that of user communities and freer access advocates. Another will be that of the telecommunications and cable industries which provide the physical connections to the Internet. Lastly, the perspective of government regulators and policy makers will be presented. Given that the scope of wireless development and implementation worldwide is far too broad for this paper, the point of view presented will focus primarily on the North American experience. This paper will begin with a brief technical overview of wireless technology for Internet, followed by a discussion of the potential goals and objectives of such technology in everyday use. A look at the potential problems related to deployment and ownership issues from a provider perspective will provide a contrast to these goals. Following this will be a more in-depth examination of regulation and government involvement, focusing on what current legislation allows, some possible effects of proposed legislation, as well as motivations for these changes. These will be exemplified by the current debate in America on municipal wireless as well as the telecommunications policy review recently conducted in Canada.

Wireless communication, synonymous with radio communication, is a process whereby radio waves are systematically generated and then emitted through an antenna. The radio waves propagate through a medium, usually air, where they are received by another device and the signal is decoded. Radio waves also have the property of being able to penetrate, bend around, or reflect off, many different physical barriers. However, radio waves are affected differently by different materials. For example, over open fields radio signals can travel great distances, but in a cramped urban environment the signal may degrade to only a few dozen meters. The radio waves used by various devices operate in a number of different frequency ranges that make up part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. In the 1980s, with the invention of Terminal Node Controllers, a method was created to divide a radio message into packets, with built-in error detection (Dubendorf, 2003, p.5). Packets paved the way for computers to use wireless technology to communicate with each other. Since radio waves travel through the air and can be interfered with by a number of factors, packets allowed for sent data to be accurately checked upon receipt.

In 1997, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), created the 802.11 standard (also know as the “Wi-Fi” or Wireless Fidelity standard), which listed a number of protocols related to transmitting data over the unlicensed 2.4 gigahertz (GHz) band. “Unlicensed” refers to the fact that this band in the spectrum (known as the Industrial, Scientific and Medical or ISM band) did not require operators to obtain a government license prior to use. This is in contrast to other frequency ranges in the spectrum which do require licenses, such as those that broadcast television or telephone signals. These signals are typically controlled at the national level because of the varying, and often very high, power required to broadcast these signals over distances. They are also controlled because of the interference these signals can create for other signals in the spectrum.

In 1999, the IEEE revised the standard to include the 802.11b standard for data rates up to 11 Megabits per second. Along with other enhancements, this set the standard for numerous devices to be created to take advantage of this unlicensed wireless band. In the years since, higher data rate standards such as 802.11a and 802.11g have been added, although 802.11b is still common. In conjunction with the use of the software protocols for Transmission Control (TCP) and Internet (IP), wireless devices of many kinds now exist to transmit and receive Internet signals. The most fundamental of these configurations is the Basic Service Set (BSS) which consists of a group of computing devices with wireless network interfaces, which communicate with each other (Gast, 2002, p.10). With the recent proliferation of reasonably inexpensive wireless components, the BSS has become for many users a wireless router acting as an Access Point (AP) which broadcasts a signal connecting a number of computers. When the computers can communicate and share information between each other, it forms a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN).

This technology is now so common it is available in work places, public spaces, universities, and households among other locations. Indeed, one of wireless technology’s strong points is its ability to be deployed nearly anywhere and for the signal, under the right conditions, to be transmitted over considerable distance. Furthermore, with the ability to broadcast over a range, compared to having a single wired connection point, users equipped with portable devices can also receive signals while mobile.

Another commonly used term to refer to these mobile wireless networks are wireless MANETs or Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. The “ad-hoc” nature of the network refers to the ever changing network topography resulting from this mobility compared to the fixed network topography of hard-wired connections^¹. However, while that mobility might seem very attractive to the end-user, for network planners and systems developers, it can prove very problematic. In traditional fixed networks, it is easy to maintain awareness and control of where receiving terminals are located because they do not move. In wireless networks, not only can the number of ‘stations’ (wirelessly enabled terminals) fluctuate as they pass in and out of the coverage area, but their location may change as well.

From a systems perspective, physical location is more appropriately conceived of as a network location, which is handled by what is known as an IP address. In a fixed network, IP addresses are assigned so that the controlling terminal has a “map” of the nodes in the network. In a wireless network, IP addresses need to be assigned and recovered as stations pass in and out of coverage, as well as making sure there are enough addresses to assign to any node in the network. When multiple access points (APs) exist within the same network, it also becomes problematic to make sure that data is effectively and efficiently routed throughout the network.

Traditionally, fixed networks, like the Internet, use a protocol known as “Link State Routing” to make sure that an accurate and detailed map exists of all the nodes in a network. This ensures that information is passed in the most effective and efficient manner possible (Santivanez, Ramanathan & Stavrakakis, 2001). However, because of the massive processing overhead required to constantly update the status of potentially numerous changing nodes, new ways of handling routing need to be considered.

Presently, there are a number of different algorithms potentially useful for wireless routing. However, what is clear is that the mobile and dynamic characteristics of networks can be quite complicated in nature. One particular strategy of note in mobile wireless is what is known as “mesh” networking. As O’Brien (2003) describes this, mesh networking “is a technique for creating self-organising clusters of computers that make their own connections between one another, spreading their coverage one node at a time across any terrain, with no central planning authority” (pg.1). In fact, wireless nodes in a mesh network act as “both a service provider and a service consumer” (Xue & Ganz, 2002, p.180). That is, each node has the ability to help route data, as opposed to relying on centrally controlled access points alone. A very powerful aspect of mesh networking is the ability to “self-heal” in that the network routes around downed or unreachable nodes, to try and make sure that data is properly transmitted to each operational node.

Wireless networking, for many of the factors indicated previously, is a topic of interest from both scientific and social perspectives. Due to the variety of technologies involved, for example software programming, antennas, and packet transmission, it is well-studied in computer science, and computer and electrical engineering. From social perspectives, wireless networking offers new possibilities for social engagement and community empowerment. For example, the phenomenon of “hotspots” (wireless APs) in cafes and other public spaces is creating a new social dynamic. Users can now gather in public spaces and interact in person, while simultaneously being connected to the Internet at large, including their Internet-based social groups. Another example would be the application of wireless technology in remote or low-resource areas. Certainly, the ability for the Internet to be accessed literally out of thin air, has created new questions about ownership, privacy, and ‘freeness’ (both in terms of access and monetary cost). Undoubtedly, there is great promise and interest in these topics and there are a number of key potential directions that wireless can take, and goals it can achieve.

One of the primary goals of wireless implementation is relatively easy deployment when compared to wired alternatives. While it is true that wireless Internet services make use of existing wired connections, extending wireless services does not require the often labour-intensive physical work, such as excavation or laying cable, that extending wired services might. Lehr and McKnight (2003) suggest that for these reasons, among others, “wireless infrastructure may be deployed more rapidly than wireline alternatives to respond to new market opportunities or changing demand” (pg. 357). When wireless coverage needs to be extended, it is simply a matter of adding additional APs to create a greater “cloud” of access.

Improved mobility is another significant goal of wireless, and the recent proliferation of portable wireless devices is indicative of this. Wireless Internet access can be achieved not only from wirelessly enabled desktops, but more commonly from laptops (often with embedded antennas), Pocket PCs, and cell phones. This has the effect of “unwiring” people from fixed locations, while at the same time, providing persistent connections to email and other communications services. This is particularly crucial for professionals who often need to take their work around with them. Wi-Fi access is even in some circumstances available for travelers in-flight, extending their Internet experience from the airport to the airplane. Wireless Internet offered at universities and colleges also provides another incentive for students to tote around their laptops for note-taking. As one MIT lecturer notes,

…my students all have laptop computers with wireless Internet access, which they take to every class. Computers no longer create fixed, specialized sites of learning like the old computing centers. Instead they enhance the potential of every space to support some kind of intellectual activity. (Mitchell, 2004, pg.1)

Mitchell (2004) goes on to add that it now “means that there is less need for formal work areas with fixed desktop computers, and a growing demand for pleasant, flexible spaces that can be appropriated as needed” (pg.1). Indeed, the ideal vision for Internet access would be outdoors in the fresh air and sunshine of pastoral university grounds.

Wireless networking is often associated with the abundant use of open-source development techniques. In general, this refers to both the actual practice of collaborative software development, as well as operating in freely available development environments. The development of the Champagne-Urbana wireless software (CUWiN)^² would be an example of open-source development. The commercial router re-programming used by groups like Ile Sans Fils in Montreal^³ would be another. While the open-source model tends to keep things rather elite-centered, as the skills required to do these activities are quite complex, at the same time, it encourages development by members of the public who do possess these skills. As James (2003) suggests, it is “their attempt to create a user-generated alternative to a top-down industry” (pg.391). That is, to provide alternatives to both the telecommunications and software industries.

Wireless networking also has the primary goal of reducing costs and where possible, providing so-called ‘free’ networking. Reducing costs stems mostly from the broadcast aspects of wireless networking. Since the signal can be spread immaterially over an area, fewer wires will need to be installed in desired points of access. Furthermore, antennas can be used to great effect to specifically beam signals to locations (useful for physical or geographical barriers) or to blanket an area less expensively.

As long as a ‘back-end’ connection to the Internet can be established, wireless technology can be used to share that connection. It is with this in mind that groups have attempted to provide Internet access freely. This is a somewhat tricky concept. The typical model of ‘free networking’ is that the Internet access is provided without cost to the end user. However, it still costs the provider of the service (or hotspot) money and resources to provide it. The key idea here though, is that the wireless signal can be received by anyone in the area and generally, each person consumes very little of the shared bandwidth. In this way, since it is not physically limited by requiring a wired connection, a large number of people within range of the node can all partake in connectivity.

This can occur essentially without restriction, except for the bandwidth constraints. However, each node can only handle a maximum number of connections, so that more nodes may be required. While it is possible to ‘hog’ a lot of the bandwidth using demanding applications like file downloading or game playing, if users are only using low intensity applications like email and instant messaging, a regular megabit connection should be sufficient to provide access to a large number of people. This may seem like a relatively uncontroversial practice, particularly since it is a model that has been used by airports and hotspots in cafes and there are two notable Canadian groups who are currently implementing this model for broader community use Ile Sans Fils in Montreal, and Wireless Toronto^⁴.

In these instances of course, the “free access” end user does not appear to be shouldering the financial cost. However, the concept of free networking may appear quite differently based on who is ultimately responsible for bearing the actual financial costs since there is a back-end connection which must still be paid for. Nevertheless, the goal of significantly reduced (or even no) costs to the end user that wireless networking presents could for example present a possibility for a central authority (e.g. government) to handle the cost of the back-end connection, which theoretically could make it easier (and cheaper) to deploy Internet to areas and those who otherwise would not be able to afford the service. That is selected (or designated) communities and neighbourhoods could now potentially receive Internet access at reduced rates, if not for free.

Telecommunications (‘telcos’) and cable companies play an integral role in the wireless Internet story as they are most frequently the ones providing the connections. The fibre-optic pipes and infrastructure used to support the Internet (e.g. the servers, switches and routers) are typically owned by these companies, and residential and business access means paying for their services. The selling of Internet services to these customers now represents a significant part of the telecommunication business, and there is clearly a vested interest in preserving the existing fee-for-service approach as summarized by Lehr and McKnight (2003) in the Telecommunications Service Model (TSM).

Essentially, the TSM is a model where a user signs a contract with a provider to be connected to a service (e.g. Internet access, telephone or cellular phone, television, etc.) and then is billed on a monthly basis for this service. Put another way, as Lehr and McKnight (2003) state, “the service is conceptualized usually as a mass-market offering to both residential and business customers on a subscription basis” (pg.359) and directly parallels the existing telecommunications service model.

In the era of wireless Internet networking, issues have begun to develop for many Internet service providers (ISPs). These coincide with some of the goals and benefits of wireless technology as noted above. For example, the use of open source technology to alter devices like wireless routers means that technically advanced users can use off-the-shelf consumer electronics to modify how their Internet connection is shared^⁵.

Of course, this usage tends to go hand-in-hand with free networking, which commonly uses these reprogrammed routers to create ‘captive portals.’ Captive portals in turn work by ‘capturing’ available wireless signals (e.g. from laptops) and redirecting them to authentication servers. In this way, for example, a café owner could have wireless Internet users come in, authenticate remotely, and simply use the service provider’s back-end connection as the means by which the data is transmitted with no additional revenue accruing to the service provider for this usage. In fact, this is the model by which groups like Ile Sans Fils operate.

Open source programming has also been used to reprogram routers to accommodate mesh networking, such as in the CUWiN project. In this way, Internet connections are only required sporadically throughout the network as the traffic can be routed back and forth throughout the nodes in the mesh. This is one of the main advantages of mesh technology, but represents precisely the kind of ‘unauthorized’ sharing that telecommunications companies are worried about.

The issue with this kind of ‘free’ or ‘shared’ networking is that essentially, only one party contracts for the services of the provider, while many people benefit. Obviously, this poses a problem for companies which would rather have it that each person who benefits from the service pays for the service. The justification for this from the service provider’s perspective is two-fold. Firstly, each user of the network is consuming bandwidth that is only made available at a cost to the provider (the ‘free-rider’ problem). Secondly, whoever is sharing the connection does not have the right to do so (the ‘gifting’ problem).

Both of these arguments were summarized by Sandvig (2004) in a paper discussing cooperative action in Wi-Fi networking. Free-ridership in this case may be analogously viewed as similar to a train ride. Each seat on the train is paid for by a customer, but when someone gets on without paying they are taking up a seat that should be occupied by an individual who has paid for that right. In the same way, Internet subscribers are paying for the high-speed bandwidth that they are using. Free-riders are simply taking up bandwidth they have not paid for, and therefore, are not entitled to.

Of course, the counter-argument is that the actual amount of bandwidth used by each individual user in the ‘big picture’ is, in fact, negligible. This would be the case particularly with low-intensity, and infrequent transmissions, such as checking email and instant messaging. However, Sandvig (2004) suggests that the average user may still not appreciate this, and that “most of us hesitate at the thought of paying for our neighbors to use our bandwidth” (pg.590). He also notes the potential danger of anonymous users abusing the network (e.g. illegally downloading) and not being traceable, or perhaps, less maliciously but no less annoyingly, consuming a lot of the bandwidth. The second argument concerning ‘gifting’ stems partly from the practice of the NoCatAuth project and other captive portal groups. In these cases, people who were sharing their networks and Internet connections (which were usually flat-rate monthly fees) were seen as giving the ‘gift’ of Internet access to other users. The problem was that “as Internet service is conceptualized by ISPs as a service and not a good…ISPs see broadband Internet as a gift only they can give” (Sandvig, 2004, pg.592)!

From these arguments stems one of most pressing and current topics facing wireless Internet and telecommunications companies. That is the issue of municipal wireless Internet. There is currently a vigorous debate on this topic in the United States and this has lead to considerable legislation and legal wrangling. The discussion revolves around the idea of providing Internet, via wireless technology, to citizens in a municipality as part of the municipality’s public infrastructure.

This typically takes two different forms. In one, the municipality provides Internet access free of charge to residents (although the residents may be responsible for their own computers), and will perhaps pay for the service using tax or advertising revenue. In the other, the municipality may charge a fee for using the service, but at a possibly reduced rate, or at least one considered ‘more affordable’.

Telecommunication providers typically present a number of objections to such plans. These include for example, that governments should not be in the business of providing telecommunications services, particularly when local telecommunication service providers may already exist and operate in the area. This is seen as problematic because governments could have an unfair competitive advantage in providing services, as for example because of favourable (administrative) rulings or municipal self-dealing when in areas such as land use and zoning, access to financial resources, and the inappropriate use of the public sector influence. Through acting in this way, governments it is argued, are upsetting the ‘economic balance’^⁶.

The crux of the argument here concerning the evolving usage of wireless Internet is that commercial service providers see the Internet as a service that should be paid for by those who want (and use) it, and not as a public good that should be made more widely accessible in support of the public interest.

Government involvement in wireless networking falls under two broad categories. One is regulation, which is already very involved in the technical aspects of wireless. The other is policy, which is constantly under development, and crucial for setting the goals and directions that the government wishes to take. Both areas are complex and subtly nuanced, and are indicative of the challenges governments face when it comes to balancing public needs and wants, safety, and economics.

In Canada, the technical aspects of wireless technology are regulated by Industry Canada. Spread-spectrum radio technology (both Direct Sequence and Frequency Hopping) is subject to certification^⁷, and antennas also need to meet emission requirements in order to minimize any interference they generate or receive (Dubendorf, 2003, p.101). While the section of spectrum wireless networking occupies is unlicensed, much of the rest of the spectrum is, and devices need to be designed and managed so as not to extend their operations out into these other licensed areas. In the USA, similar regulation exists as specified by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

While at first glance, these engineering regulations may not appear particularly controversial there are also other factors at play. For example, spectrum regulation is increasingly becoming a concern as more and more wireless devices are beginning to ‘crowd’ the bandwidth. There is the dual problem of too many devices broadcasting within one frequency grouping (although radio channels help to alleviate this to an extent) as well as not enough frequency groupings being available for device use^⁸. Spectrum allocation is a very significant regulatory problem for all jurisdictions globally. In order to ensure the interoperability of radio equipment worldwide, international standards need to be created. Predictably, there are often complications arising from this need for grand-scale collaboration.

Of course, domestically, spectrum allocation is also a pressing concern. There is a lot of discussion around this issue focusing on contrasting perspectives between those concerned with serving the public interest in terms of better accessibility, and the interest in ensuring a strong telecommunications and cable market (the primary users of the radio spectrum). Authors such as Frieden (1997) and Groebel (2003) discuss some of the concerns in spectrum allocation where the incumbent telecommunications providers have historically occupied most of the spectrum and possess considerable lobbying power in support of their own use of it (to create services to sell back to the public). Both Frieden and Groebel also stress that the spectrum represents part of the public realm which should be distributed “with an eye toward allocating [for] uses that will maximize social welfare primarily, and individual profitability of firms secondarily” (Frieden, 1997, pg.454

Policy in this area as in others is typically created by public servants and political policy staff, working its up way up from these to the elected officials. However, the current process is under some stress given the kind of citizen-enabling opportunities that wireless networking presents and the direct conflict that is arising with the interests of the market dominating telecommunications giants. What emerges is that at the heart of the wireless Internet policy discussion is the need for governments to balance the interests of the citizenry and community at large, with those of the corporations who provide those people with paid services. The battle over municipal wireless Internet is a good example of one such issue.

As well, of course wireless Internet is not confined to North America and interest has been shown in municipal wireless projects worldwide. MuniWireless.com in their July 2005 report listed 84 public access wireless broadband projects worldwide and the number is increasing exponentially as cities realize that wireless networking may provide innovative new ways of bringing Internet to the public. According to this report US cities are turning to wireless Internet as the USA falls behind Asia and Europe in broadband penetration rates, and as the digital divide becomes a more pressing issue (Vos, 2005, pg.3).

US state barriers to community broadband services began to crop up in early 2000 with various restrictions to municipal entities being applied in 14 different states (“State Barriers…”, 2004). Many of these pieces of state legislation called for a prohibition on municipal entities (e.g. local governments or public utilities) providing similar services to those of the telecommunication companies, or for requiring lengthy bureaucratic processes and referenda in order to allow such services to be provided. By 2005, even more legislation was proposed in different states limiting municipally provided broadband services of any kind, not just wireless (Baller, 2005a).

The justification for many of these pieces of legislation varied, but primarily seemed designed to protect against competition in the broadband marketplace by preventing the ‘unfair’ advantages that it was argued, municipalities would enjoy. Other arguments in support of this legislation included “ensuring public cost-effectiveness and value”, and “preventing economic imbalance or market distortion” (as for example through the presence of a public sector broadband service). Based on the number of states that did end up passing such the legislation, it would seem that these were persuasive arguments..

As well, two laws were proposed to the US Congress promoting these views on a national level. The first was the “Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005” introduced by Representative Peter Sessions from Texas, and the “Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act” introduced by Senator John Ensign from Nevada. Both acts sought, to varying degrees, to limit, restrict, or outright prohibit municipalities from entering the telecommunications provision area.

Some of this legislation, particularly early ones at the state level, did manage to pass with relatively little fanfare. However, when it was discovered how it would affect major cities like Philadelphia, PA as well as in Texas (which was already developing municipal Wi-Fi projects) concern and protest reached a much higher level. While many pro-municipal wireless groups, public interest organizations, and others, had already started to raise questions about this legislation, people started to look more seriously into the arguments supporting the new laws.

While proponents of limitation and prohibition see these laws as protecting consumer choice and ensuring competitive markets, opponents see them as precisely limiting consumer choice and eliminating competition. Opponents suggest that if the existing telecommunications giants are able to control services and pricing (particularly at levels many lower income families cannot afford) then consumer choice is in fact reduced. Furthermore, by ensuring that new players, like municipalities, face barriers and handicaps to entry, competition will actually be eliminated as the existing, powerful corporations who already provide services perpetuate their dominance.

James Baller, a prominent pro-municipal wireless advocate summarizes a number of key flaws in the justifications that some of these legislations provide. He notes for example, that incumbent telecommunications companies falsely assume that municipalities hold significant advantages over corporations, while simultaneously ignoring the “vast advantages of incumbency that established providers enjoy” (Baller, 2005b, pg.1) including for example, substantial financial resources (in the billions of dollars for many of these giants), brand loyalty and customer awareness, as well as powerful political lobbying capability. Baller also notes that telecom corporations expect that public advantages should be transferred to them, while not in turn being required to accept the duties and responsibilities of serving the public good which underlie those advantages.

Other issues cropped up during these discussions. It was for example, widely noted that Rep. Sessions was a former employee of SBC Communications (a telecommunications giant providing broadband services) and, while promoting legislation that would protect such corporations, retaining ownership of hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock in that company (“Telco stock options…”, 2005). In Philadelphia, major telecommunications companies employed an “army” of lobbyists to help push through the restrictive legislation (Dornan, 2005, para.4).

Critics however, have questioned whether there is a convincing case that broadband should be included in any universal service-type mandates. Xavier (2003) suggests that “broadband access in the home is at present not essential to being a functioning member of society” (pg.11). He goes on to note that while broadband is certainly a desirable and useful service that will likely be of increasing economic and social importance, “there is a difference between a service being useful and showing great promise and that service being crucial to meaningful participation in society” (Xavier, 2003, pg.17). Mueller (1999) argues further that rather than demand that services like broadband be universally provided, what would be more effective would be to simply “grow household wealth and to build an open, competitive economy that is able to supply information goods and services efficiently at prices that are affordable to ever larger numbers of people” (pg.354).

These kinds of arguments lend weight to the industry perspective that the government should allow businesses to do what they do best: build and distribute products and services in an unfettered manner. Governments it is argued should not ‘hamstring’ industry with unfair or constricting regulation, particularly when it is asserted that it is through efficient market economics that problems such as the digital divide can be addressed. For example, Mueller (1999) argues that in the mid-90’s in the USA, dial-up access was brought to most of the country by commercial providers driven “entirely by normal business incentives” (pg.356). Coupled with the perspective that high-speed broadband is not, at present, essential, industry seems of the mindset that wireless, like dial-up, can eventually be distributed fairly through a simple response to market demand.

However, it is instructive for policy makers to also consider why it is that community and public advocacy groups, and increasingly technology corporations and politicians, have been concerned about the direction that American legislation seems to be taking. That is, why are people mobilizing in defense of municipal wireless projects, and more generally, against pro-corporate telecommunications control? The short answer is that municipalities and communities realize that wireless Internet is what they need for development, and that much of the legislation restricting municipalities introduces significant barriers to achieving these goals.

In fact of course, broadband Internet is typically quite expensive, and among the telecommunications giants, prices remain essentially uniform, and uniformly high. Many municipalities and even citizens themselves believe that the Internet is an important tool and a public good that should not be kept out of the hands of those who cannot afford it simply for the sake of preserving the market status quo. Particularly in light of the reality that other parts of the world, notably Asia, are continuing to roll-out faster and less expensive broadband solutions, this is a particularly important issue.

Canadian studies, (Reddick and Rideout, 2005) note that cost was a major factor for many citizens not going online. Other authors are wary as well of dismissing the claim that access is neither essential nor a basic need. For example, Souter (1999) argues that “access to ICTs and their potential for enhancing welfare and community involvement is increasingly important for communities seeking to raise their quality of life, engage in determining the policies that affect them, or diminish the differentials that underpin their disadvantage” (pg.409).

In the USA, some of these views are echoed in the pro-municipal wireless “Community Broadband Act of 2005” introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and John McCain of Arizona. In his speech to the Senate, Senator Lautenberg highlighted the reasons why communities want and need wireless projects.

“Mr. President, this bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that could: Improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our country’s international competitiveness by giving business the means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally; encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private partnerships.”

This statement captures both the direction that municipal and community groups wish to take, while also highlighting what they fear to lose with restrictive or prohibitive legislation. Lautenberg also adds that “Government should work to open doors to greater technology for the American people, not slam them shut” (Coyne, 2005, para.3). Indeed, from a community informatics perspective, it is crucial that governments make decisions with an eye towards serving the public interest, and in particular, as previous authors and studies indicated, to support those who may not be adequately served by market mechanisms. Williamson (1999) pointedly adds that while industry seems focused on debating in the economic realm alone, social factors are important and “consideration should be given to the total context of the lives of the groups who may have a critical need to have access to extended telecommunications services” (pg. 185).

This paper began with an overview of the technical specifications of wireless Internet networking, particularly looking at the advances in open source development and mesh networking. This was followed by an examination of the potential for these new networks, including so-called ‘free networking’ and its applications in sharing connectivity among many users. Objections to some of these developments were identified from the telecommunication provider perspective which is that that they retain rights and ownership over the services they provide to their customers whatever the opportunities for redistribution (as for example through wireless transmission). It was noted further that services such as wireless broadcasting are of necessity both technically regulated and to be placed in the broader social and economic context of public policy. As one example of the kinds of difficulties faced in policy creation, the on-going political battle in America over municipal wireless was examined in some detail. Policy creation is often complex since it typically presents the need for compromise between conflicting goals and objectives.

References

Dubendorf, V.A. (2003). Wireless Data Technologies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. UK.

Frieden, R. (1997). Widespread deployment of wireless telephony: Business, legal, regulatory and spectrum challenges. Telecommunications Policy, 21(5).

Gast, M.S. (2002). 802.11 Wireless Networks The Definitive Guide. O’Reilly and Associates, USA.

Groebel, Annegret. (2003). Should we regulate any aspects of wireless? Telecommunications Policy, 27(5-6).

James, J. (2001). Low-cost computing and related ways of overcoming the global digital divide.

Keenan, T.P. & Trotter, D.M. (1999). The changing role of community networks in providing citizen access to the Internet. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 9(2).

Lehr, W. & McKnight, L.W. (2003). Wireless Internet Access: 3G vs. WiFi? Telecommunications Policy, 27(5-6).

Mitchell, W.L. (2004). Higher learning, the Wi-Fi way: wireless internet access is spawning a new kind of collaborative learning in the campuses of the world. New Scientist, 181(2430).

Mueller, M. (1999). Universal Service Policies as Wealth Redistribution. Government Information Quarterly, 16(4).

O’Brien, D. (2003). Rebel network: why pay a fortune to get wired up to broadband when you could join an anarchic wireless network that does the job. New Scientist, 180(2416).

Sandvig, C. (2004). An initial assessment of cooperative action in Wi-Fi networking. Telecommunications Policy, 28(7-8).

Santivanez, C.A., Ramanathan, R. & Stavrakakis, I. (2001). Routing : Making link-state routing scale for ad hoc networks. Proceedings of the 2^nd ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking & computing.

Souter, D. (1999). The role of information and communication technologies in democratic government. Info, 1(5).

Williamson, K. (1999). Extending universal service: social and economic issues. Info, 1(2).

Xavier, P. (2003). Should broadband be part of universal service obligations? Info, 5(1).

Xue, Q. & Ganz, A. (2002). QoS Routing for Mesh-Based Wireless LANs. International Journal of Wireless Information Networks, 9(3).

1When a wireless AP is used to extend an existing wired network, this is considered “infrastructure networking”, compared to when it is used to establish communication between wireless devices as part of its own network, which is “ad hoc networking” (“Wireless Network Buying Guide”, 2005, p.6)

3http://www.ilesansfil.org/tiki-index.php

4 http://wirelesstoronto.ca/index.php Much of this discussion draws on a private conversation with Gabe Sawhney from Wireless Toronto, July 4, 2005.

5Interestingly, this was also a problem for Internet providers in the early stages of residential broadband deployment as home users could hook up inexpensive routers or switches to distribute Internet connections to multiple computers without paying for extra IP addresses. Users were discouraged from doing this by ISPs not providing technical support for router/switch based home networks.

6These opposing arguments are adapted from language in Colorado State Bill SB05-152 and Florida State Bill SB1714.

Matthew A Wong

References