Whether public or private and whatever the scope, there are three critical aspects to any communications or technology project:
- the ownership and business model,
- the state of the technology (physics/network/system considerations), and
- the purpose (or purposes).
Of course these aspects are interwoven, but each heading stands on its own, and we can determine a logical flow for project planning. We’ll need clarity on each, and anything less would be irresponsible.
Consider public communications initiatives such as municipal (or more accurately, city-wide) wireless and broadband networks as have been the focus of many cities and towns across the country, including Chicago.
The inconvenient truth about communications infrastructure (and other public technology) projects is that we’re horribly irresponsible about achieving the clarity needed in these three areas for a good outcome.
Our tendency has been to take the ownership and business model for granted (let industry do it!), to accept the technology on offer by the vendors, and to build a constituency for the network among different interest groups with claims that the network will meet their needs and desires.
We’re doing this bass-ackwards, we’re costing the people, the public, a lot of money (in aggregate, and individually), and we aren’t getting the reliability and functionality we should be getting from these networks.
Network purpose (or purposes) and character should be the logical driver of the process. Purpose should drive technology choice and together these should map out the options for ownership and business model.
We shouldn’t accept any limitation on the ownership/business model options without a deep and clear understanding of the network purpose and the sort of reliability, functionality and accountability that purpose demands. Too much effort is spent in debates and lobbying promulgated by the usual suspects, the purveyors of networks. Unchecked, each vendor’s biased agenda with respect to business model and ready-technology warps public deliberation.
All too often, American cities have closed the doors to viable ownership models as a result of lobbying and tactical rhetoric. To state the case more strongly: they do so at great cost to the public and to the commonweal; they do not serve our interests well, they do not proceed with clarity of public purpose.
What are the ownership models? We can build, buy, or rent. If we take business as our paradigmatic example, big businesses tend to build and buy their own networks whenever they can. Doesn’t it make as much sense for communities and for local governments to do likewise?
I’ve spent a lot of time arguing which of the three aspects should drive the other, and why the business-ownership model should not drive the process. Exploring the technology and the purposes of the network are a lot more work, but that is where we should be directing our attention.
I’ll only briefly mention that the range of technology options is more constrained by a policy regime then it is by the physics and network design.
The definition of network purposes is left as an exercise for your community.
