WIFI PUBLICS

Abstract

Drawing on community expertise, open-source software and non-hierarchical organizational strategies, community wireless networks (CWN) engage volunteers in building networks for public internet access and community media. Volunteers intend these networks to be used to reinvigorate local community. Together the following two purposes create two distinct mediated publics: to engage volunteers in discussing and undertaking technical innovations, and to provide internet access and local community media to urban citizens. To better address the potential of CWN as a form of local innovation and democratic rationalization, the relationship between the two publics must be better understood. Using a case study of a Canadian CWN, this article advances the category of ‘public’ as alternative and complementary to ‘community’ as it is used to describe the social and technical structures of these projects. By addressing the tensions between the geek-public of WiFi developers, and the community-public of local people using community WiFi networks, this article revisits questions about the democratic impact of community networking projects. The article concludes that CWN projects create new potential for local community engagement, but that they also have a tendency to reinforce geek-publics more than community-publics, challenging the assumption that community networks using technology development as a vector for social action necessarily promote greater democracy.

Keywords:

• community networks
• internet access
• socio-technical
• wireless networking
• new media
• democracy

Acknowledgements

This article was supported by the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) and by the Laboratoire de Communication Médiatisée par Ordinateur at the Université du Québec à Montréal, both funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Some data were also collected as part of the Community Wireless Infrastructure Research Project (CWIRP), funded by Infrastructure Canada. I would like to thank Leslie Regan Shade, Keith Hampton, and three anonymous reviewers for excellent comments and suggestions. Finally, thank you to my geek friends and colleagues at Ile Sans Fil, Wireless Toronto, and the British Columbia Wireless Networking Society (especially Michael Lenczner, Benoit Gregoire, Hanna Cho, and Matthew Asham).

Notes

The 2006 survey was developed by Laura Forlano, Columbia University, who deployed a similar survey in New York City and Budapest. Comparative findings from all three surveys are presented in Forlano (2008), and I am extremely grateful for her generosity in partnering on the deployment of the Montreal survey and sharing the results.

The 2007 interviews were conducted as part of a research contract with the Community Wireless Infrastructure Research Project (CWIRP). The semi-structured interview script was developed to touch upon the same themes as the 2005 interviews. Thirteen interviews with users were conducted as part of this project. An agreement with the CWIRP project has provided me access to raw data collected as part of the ISF case study.

The National Broadband Task Force adopted as its overarching principle in 2001 that ‘as a matter of urgency, that all Canadians should have access to broadband network services so that they can live and prosper in any part of the land and have access to high levels of education, health, cultural and economic opportunities’ (Report of the National Broadband Task Force 2003). In 2002, the Industry Canada Broadband for Rural and Northern Development programme launched, with one objective to incite providers to expand broadband connectivity to rural areas at prices equivalent to urban subscribers.

This vision has recently changed to: ‘We believe that technology can be used to bring people together and foster a sense of community. In pursuit of that goal, Ile Sans Fil uses it's (sic) free public access points to promote interaction between users, show new media art, and provide geographically- and community-relevant information’ (2007).

Original French: ‘C'est principalement un club de geek, ah, je pense que c'est un club de passionnés’.

Original French: ‘On est une belle gang … il y a du beau monde ici’.

Original French: ‘Pour moi, c'est donner accès a quelquechose qui est important, comme l'eau, l’éléctricité – ce n'est pas plus important que l'eau mais ça permet de s'informer'.

Original French: C'est comme on a créé une chaine de production, on a répéter le modèle industriel … .La problème c'est qu'il n' y a pas vraiment des buts nobles … En dedans il ya une problème de gouvernance. Les gens avec les projets artistiques étaient toujours les ‘outsiders’.