[governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ISP

[Garth Graham]

What the Government of British Columbia actually leveraged in  
exchange for Internet services in unserved rural and remote  
communities in BC was the out-sourcing of it's overall government  
networking needs to the prime telecommunications carrier in BC -  
Telus.  It was a by-product of a public-private partnership (P3).   
Much of the details are on the web site of NetworkBC, the BC  
Government agency that negotiated and implemented the "Connecting  
Communities Agreement."  NetWork BC is a dedicated project office,  
within the Ministry of Management Services, "created to work with  
British Columbia communities and the private sector to bridge the  
digital divide:"
http://www.networkbc.ca/

Telus also has pages on this at "Connecting Communities:"
http://about.telus.com/digitaldivide/index.html

Connecting Communities has been successful in doing just that -  
connecting communities.  But much of its success depends on the "no  
compete" sections of the agreement.  Telus was not present in those  
communities because, as they had said, there was no business case to  
be there in such small markets.  But small independent ISPs in BC  
knew very well that any success they had would prove that a "market"  
actually existed, causing Telus to follow them onto the ground, and  
thus blasting their capital investment, and the community learning  
about operating community-based broadband for local socio-economic  
development, out of existence.  What happens after the overall  
outsourcing contract ends in 2009 isn't at all clear.

Re Mike's question - Internet governance in the public interest? -  
the most interesting by-product of the Connecting Communities  
Agreement was the fostering by NetworkBC of what this list would call  
a CS organization, the British Columbia Community Connectivity  
Cooperative (BC3).  It was intended to link all of the communities  
involved and allow for sharing of their experience.  NetworkBC did  
this, in part, to provide political evidence that demand for  
broadband actually existed, thus justifying the P3 decision on  
political terms.  Once the deal was done and the implementation was  
on track, the Government's support of BC3 was largely withdrawn ...  
and  BC3 began to disappear.  Like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in  
Wonderland, the last thing to go was the smile. The will to share  
community-based approaches to the uses of the Internet for socio- 
economic development is still there.  But having the means to achieve  
that turns out to as important as the best of intentions.  However,  
many of BC's rural and remote communities are inhabited by indigenous  
peoples.  There is a First Nation Technology Council that does have  
access to external support, so that effective collaboration for  
broadband development does still occur among BC's First Nations  
communities.

GG

On 18-Mar-08, at 8:14 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:

> .... as I
> understand it the government of British Columbia instituted a  
> province wide
> program for smaller communities which was based on precisely the model
> mentioned below... That is the Province aggregated its purchase of  
> Internet
> service into the smaller communities (they represented anywhere  
> from 40% up
> of overall service).  Through this aggregation on a Province wide  
> basis they
> were able to negotiate highly favourable terms with a single  
> carrier to
> allow the creation of points of presence in all interested  
> communities.
>
> The communities in turn were encouraged and supported in developing  
> local
> ISP's to manage the service (they ranged from NGO's through public  
> agencies
> owned by the municipal authorities through to private companies).   
> They were
> provided with the Internet access at a very favourable cost and  
> then were
> free to contract with whomever they wished at whatever prices they  
> could
> negotiate for the range of services (including muni-wifi) tiered on  
> top of
> the basic access including municipal services, fee for service  
> applications
> for customers and so on.
>
> Garth Graham probably knows more about this but it has proven I  
> think, very
> successful in ensuring a very wide distribution of broadband access
> throughout the province.
>
> Internet governance in the public interest?
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: March 18, 2008 6:20 AM
> To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net;  
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [A2k] keeping an eye on IPenforcement/ 
> ISP
>
>
> There is a video of Bob's talk, will post URL soon.
>
> Bob is advocating for local public ownership of Internet  
> infrastructure,
> treating access as a basic public service like sewers or water. A  
> separation
> of apps/services from infrastructure, with the infrastructure  
> envisioned as
> a local mesh apps ride on top of, is what he is imagining.
>
> I'm skeptical of how this might work, but we may have a memo on a  
> greenfield
> layout along these lines before long.  And before everyone  
> dismisses Bob as
> a dreamer, he previously dreamt up e spreadsheets begetting the pc
> revolution, and then home networks and NATs - of course with others  
> too - so
> at least some of his dreams become real.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance