This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Wireless User Groups: A Comparison with Early Predecessors
Abstract
This paper attempts to elicit prominent characteristics of wireless
user groups, which
have presented grassroot endeavor of building Wi-Fi networks over
unlicensed spectrum.
After examining the earlier technology groups of radio amateurs,
rural telephone co-ops,
and community networks, the study claims that the characteristics of
user innovation,
user autonomy, and sense of community can play an important role for
wireless user
groups to lay the groundwork for the future trajectory of the Wi-Fi
technology.
Jung-Sook Lee Competition Wireless User Groups 2
Jung-Sook Lee Competition
Wireless User Groups: A Comparison with Early Predecessors
The recent few years have seen dramatic popularity and development of
Wi-Fi (Wireless
Fidelity) networks that are largely using the IEEE 802.11b
technology. Among the various kinds
of Wi-Fi usage, the wireless user groups' grassroot endeavor of
establishing wireless networks
with inexpensive off-the-shelf equipment over unlicensed frequencies
or the user participation of
the groups in the process of development of the technology has been
remarkably successful. For
example, there were only about 10 well-known wireless user groups in
early 2001 (Flickenger,
2003), but the number of those groups has increased to 95 as of
November 2004 in the US.1
Wireless user groups or wireless community networks, which are bottom-up
organizations by users themselves, have usually involved various
activities including: 1)
provision of small-scale wireless Internet access through their
own-built networks; 2) regular
meetings in which new experiments or applications related to wireless
technologies are presented
by group leaders or commercial vendors for information sharing among
the group members; 3)
running websites and mailing lists among the members for information
exchange or
correspondence; 4) searching for available wireless access areas
through war chalking or war
driving; and 5) helping community events for wireless Internet access
or other wireless network
projects.
These activities of wireless user groups suggest several important
implications with
regard to building wireless network infrastructure. First, they
provide the possibility of a future in
which wireless networks are connected with each other and build
alternative infrastructure with
the unwired "last mile," bypassing the expensive wired networks (Bar
& Galperin, 2004),
1 For a comprehensive list of wireless user groups, see
http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/WirelessCommunities. It is
likely, however, that the actual number
of wireless user groups may be somewhat less than 95, given the fact
that some have more than one website
or some groups are currently under construction. Wireless User Groups 3
especially for the areas where the commercial cable or telephone
companies do not provide high
speed Internet services largely due to low profits. Second, wireless
user groups provide a venue
for user experimentation and innovation, which has been the driving
force for the decentralized
network development through "learning by doing" as exemplified by the
Internet (Bar & Riis,
2000). Third, the activities of wireless user groups cast
implications for the future generation
spectrum policy. Since wireless user groups are utilizing the
unlicensed frequencies in 2.4GHz,
the success and increase of wireless user groups make policymakers
reconsider expanding the
unlicensed portion of spectrum.2
It is notable, however, that the wireless user groups' activities of
innovative activities,
user autonomy, and enhancing sense of community are similar to those
of other technologies'
pioneers in their early stages of development, which will be examined
later. In addition, those
activities suggest the implications for the future trajectory of
wireless user groups when they are
compared with the activities of the earlier groups. For instance,
radio amateurs in 1910s and
1920s significantly contributed to the later development of radio
technology with their homebrew
technologies. In a similar fashion, rural telephone co-ops in almost
the same periods built
their own telephone networks faced with little interest of Bell
companies and independents.
Relatively recently, community networking movement encouraged the
community members'
voluntary participation for the enhancement of community well-being.
The common factor of
these early predecessors is that the actions of these groups were
bottom-up behaviors when the
mainstream corporations or organizations largely ignored the
technologies' implementation. This
historical evidence is, on the other hand, related with the social
constructivist approach to
technology, which investigates the social dynamics shaping the paths
and patterns of evolution of
the emerging network technologies.
2 For the policy debate in this matter with contrasting views, see
Faulhaber & Farber (2002) and Benkler
(2002). Wireless User Groups 4
Based on this understanding, this paper traces the characteristics of
those earlier
predecessors with regard to their roles in the future development of
the technologies. Then, it
discusses the lessons and implications of the activities of those
radio amateurs, rural telephone
co-ops, and community networks to wireless user groups, which are in
a similarly early stage of
wireless network development. The following section begins with an
examination of the social
constructive approach to technology as a theoretical framework.
Social Constructivist Approach to Technology
Studies of the social constructivism of technology, sometimes called
"social shaping of
technology," emerged in the 1980s through a critique of
then-prevailing technological
determinism (Williams & Edge, 1996). The main proposition of social
constructivism of
technology is that the way in which a technology's path evolves is
not predetermined by the
technology's inner logic or economic imperative, but influenced by
social, organizational,
political, economic, and cultural factors that surround the
technology as well as the technology
itself. In other words, social environments shape particular paths of
technologies as much as
technologies affect society and organizations (MacKenzie & Wajcman,
1985). Thus, it is
important to investigate institutional and social contexts such as
market dynamics, cultural
differences, and policy implementations in order to fully understand
the trajectory of a technology.
It should be noted, however, that the perspective is not a simple
"social determinism" (Williams
& Edge, 1996). Rather, it emphasizes the roles of human beings in the
continuous interactions of
various social and technical elements. Therefore, the key question of
the approach can be how
individuals and institutions construct the design and evolution of a
technology in question. In sum,
the social constructivist approach claims that there is no single
factor that can steer the
development of technologies along a chosen trajectory.
This social constructivist approach has been employed for the studies
of various
technologies. Hughes (1983) investigated the development of
electricity in the US and Europe
and argued that there would be different phases in the course of
technological systems' Wireless User Groups 5
development. The first phase is invention and development in which
inventor-entrepreneurs play
a predominant role presiding over a process which extends from the
inventive idea through
development to the time when an invented system is ready to be used.
The second phase is
characterized as technology transfer from one region and society to
another. During this phase,
the agents of change are various, including inventors, entrepreneurs,
organizers of enterprises,
and financiers (Hughes, 1983). The third phase is that of system
growth where sometimes
competing systems are in conflicts and a new solution emerges. The
fourth phase of the system
model is characterized by substantial momentum. The momentum consists
of numerous factors
from the machines or physical artifacts of the system to professional
skills of the people who are
involved in the system and to business concerns or government
policies that shape the technical
core of the system. The last phase is that of qualitative change in
which the new system replaces
the old systems and is facilitated by government funding and the
corporations' investment for the
benefits from the new dominant system. However, it should be noted
that the pattern of this
general system development does not evolve according to a
predetermined fashion. Again, a
number of social and institutional factors influence the
technological system's trajectory in this
process. The point from Hughes' conception of technology development
is that in the first phase
of invention and development, the work of bold innovators and
entrepreneurs is very crucial in
the sense that they lay the groundwork for other established
organizations to partake in the further
evolution when the technology becomes stable. Using Hughes' framework
of technological
systems' development, this paper investigates the prominent features
of radio amateurs, rural
telephone co-ops, and community networks below. Methodologically, the
characteristics were
derived from an extensive examination of literature rather than
selected from a theoretical ground
a priori. However, this study understands that the characteristics
described here are more
important concepts than others in explaining the roles of those
groups in the development of the
technology each group involved.
Radio Amateurs: User Innovation and Experimentation Wireless User Groups 6
First of all, radio "amateurs" can be defined here as the people who
take part in activities
with radio technology not as their main job. From 1906 to 1912, when
incumbent companies such
as Western Union and AT&T ignored the potential of newly developed
wireless technology and
concentrated on preserving the hegemony of their own systems,
thousands of people began to see
a promising future of the radio technology (Douglas, 1986).
Surprisingly enough, they—mostly
white middle-class boys and men—began to construct and use their own
radio stations,
transforming their vision of establishing a new communication method
through the air into action.
The popularity of home-brew radio technology was so widespread that
around 1912 there were
several hundred thousand active amateur operators in the US (Douglas,
1986). Although the
enactment of Radio Act of 1912 somewhat deterred the activities of
radio amateurs, the number
of them was still more than 6,000 around 1917 (Maxwell, 2000). If
these amateur radio activities
were such a prominent phenomenon in those days, what was the
overarching characteristic that
shaped the initial development of radio technology? An examination of
the literature that
illustrates the activities of radio amateurs in the early days
suggests the characteristic of user
innovation and experimentation.
As Douglas (1986, 1989) describes, in the hands of amateurs, all
sorts of possible
technical reuse and adaptive recycling were employed. For example,
radio amateurs made
condensers with discarded photographic plates and they used brass
spheres from an old bedstead
or an electric fan to generate a spark gap (Douglas, 1986, p. 44).
Furthermore, curtain rods,
baseball bats, or Quaker Oats containers wound with wire were used to
make tuning coils
(Douglas, 1986, p. 44). That is, radio amateurs built their homemade
sets in sheds, attics, and
barn lofts with whatever materials were available, from tomato cans
to rolling pins to tobacco tin
foil, scaling trees and roofs to find the best spots for their
antennas, insulating their aerials with
everything from old pop bottles to porcelain cleats (Walker, 2001, p.
15). In sum, the amateurs
not only adopted the new radio technology, but also built it,
tinkered with it, modified it, and tried
to extend its range and performance (Douglas, 1986). Wireless User Groups 7
These activities of user driven experimentations facilitated and
resulted in several new
inventions. For example, in 1913, a New York amateur, Edwin H.
Armstrong, invented the tubeoperated
regenerative receiver and his design became widely known in 1915
among the amateurs
(Maxwell, 2000). This new receiver had greater sensitivity than the
crystal detectors, which had
been used since 1906 to detect radio waves. Although vacuum tubes
were more expensive at the
time than crystal detectors, some amateurs began to experiment with
the new design (Maxwell,
2000). In fact, what distinguished radio amateurs from the masses who
sat "merely listening" to
radio receivers was the technical competence through tinkering
actively with available devices at
that time. They were active and voluntary experimenters.
The activities of radio amateurs illustrated above indicate that they
were the main actors
in Hughes' (1983) phase of invention and development. It was them who
made the embryonic
technology be channeled into a new medium with a variety of inventive
ideas when the
mainstream engineers, managers, and financiers largely remained on
the sidelines. However, it
should be somewhat cautious about the extent to which the homemade
devices contributed to the
later development of radio technology. Although the activities of
radio amateurs progressed to the
second phase of technology transfer, it was not until when the
tube-operated regenerative receiver
was invented and widely known among the amateurs. In other words, the
stories about the
homebrew devices that used Quaker Oats containers or tobacco tin foil
were anecdotal, yet the
devices were not transformed to more solid applications. In sum, it
will be fairer to say that radio
amateurs were active in 'tinkering' and experimenting with the
technology, but their performance
in tinkering was not so influential in the transformation from the
first phase to the second phase to
the extent that it was further elaborated and then adopted by the
large entities and widely diffused
for practical use.
However, the activities of radio amateurs did not stop at their own
experimentation of the
technology. They organized wireless clubs and ran meetings through
which the participants
shared technical problems and solutions. In addition to technical
information sharing and training Wireless User Groups 8
new members, those clubs also negotiated with government with regard
to regulation of the
airwaves (Walker, 2001). It was estimated that there existed 122
clubs by 1912 (Douglas, 1986).
Some of them extended their effective range by relaying messages with
others. They recognized
that messages could be sent more reliably over long distances if
relay stations were organized
(Maxwell, 2000). In 1914, as an effort to make it possible to connect
coast to coast, the American
Radio Relay League (ARRL) was founded and the organization began to
publish its own journal,
QST.
Contributions of these innovative activities of radio amateurs also
should not be
neglected. As the US got deeply involved in the World War I, a pool
of trained amateurs
eventually participated in the service for the nation with their
adept technical skills and expertise.
As a result, it became clear to all that the amateurs possessed a
powerful technology (Haring,
2003). In addition, as the broadcasting industry became growing since
1920s, business people
discovered that the amateurs had deeper knowledge about radio
technology and were better than
many professionals, and thus, the amateurs were hired for the
operation of commercially
established stations (Walker, 2001).
The progress radio amateurs made and their contributions to the
larger society indicate
that the radio technology experienced not only the phase of
technology transfer but also the stage
of system growth. The ARRL facilitated the diffusion of the
technology from one region to
another and radio amateurs provided military as well as the emerging
broadcasting industry with
their technical expertise so that the technology could be fully
blossomed. The broadcasting
industry also moved into higher gear in the development of the radio
technology. As the example
of system growth, the competing and advanced application of frequency
modulation (FM) as
opposed to amplitude modulation (AM) emerged although it was broadly
accepted long after its
introduction. Furthermore, the various symptoms of the next phase of
substantial momentum can
be also found. Several broadcasting companies such as NBC and CBS
shaped the landscape of
the industry and government policies represented by the Radio Act of
1927 and the Wireless User Groups 9
Communications Act of 1934 were settled together with the
establishment of an independent
regulatory body, the FCC. Radio amateurs actively participated in
this process of development as
examined above. Unlike the first stage of invention and development,
this time radio amateurs
came out of their cottage and envisioned the future of the radio
technology by taking part in the
construction of a new technology era. That is, ratio amateurs and
their unfettered enthusiasm
made breakthroughs in radio possible. Indeed, it was radio amateurs
who pioneered the potentials
of the radio technology and paved the way for the future development
of the technology.
Thus far, this section examined radio amateurs' innovative activities
and their
contributions to the early radio's development. However, it should be
noted that social,
institutional factors also affected the trajectory of the radio
technology, although radio amateurs
were at the heart of the developing path. For instance, the very low
cost of crystal detector at the
time of 1900s helped the evolution of the radio boom (Douglas, 1986).
Along with the
inexpensive crystal set, the contemporary popular culture
significantly accounts for the
proliferation of wireless technology, encouraging and romanticizing
the amateurs' hobby
(Douglas, 1989). On the other hand, government policy, which feared
the problem of interference,
sometimes hindered the full-fledged experimentation among the
amateurs. The enactment of the
Radio Act of 1912 dropped the number of the amateurs, while the
hostilities of Navy to the
amateurs oftentimes cast a shadow over the future of amateur radio.
Although amateur radio in
the US kept growing regardless of these hurdles, the technology's
development was no doubt
embedded in the social environments.
Rural Telephone Co-ops: User Autonomy
As Sandvig (2003) properly points out, a historical examination of large-scale
infrastructure developments reveals that those projects were many
times accomplished not by
large entities such as governments or corporate companies, but by
small-scale end users. The
implementation of rural telephony in the US in the early 20th century
is the perfect case as an
exemplar. Wireless User Groups 10
In 1902 there existed about 5,000 farmer telephone lines, which were
simple cooperative
mutual systems, in many cases even without regular switchboards. The
number of these
undercapitalized operations was increased to about 18,000 in 1907,
accounting for 1.5 million
rural telephones, 24% of the total (Fischer, 1987a). In 1912, it was
estimated that about 3 million
or 38% of all American telephones were rural, at a time when 53% of
American people lived in
rural areas (Fischer, 1987a). Those rural telephones served the areas
where Bell or independent
companies found little financial interest. Given the farmers' much
lower incomes and lack of
technical expertise or equipment, the implementation of rural
telephone systems is highly
remarkable (Fischer, 1992).
In most cases, a rural telephone system or farmer line was arranged
by a group of leading
farmers, or a small-town merchant or doctor, having 25 or so
subscribers (Fischer, 1987b). In
addition, farm wives or family members served as operator in the
kitchen during the daytime and
men repaired lines and installed telephones. The most common rural
telephone instrument was
the magneto set and oftentimes twenty or more subscribers were hooked
to the same grounded
magnet circuit (Hadwiger & Cochran, 1984). To make a call, the caller
turned the generator crank,
which was heard as a ring by other parties on the line, and which
also activated a "drop" in the
operator's switchboard signaling that a call was being made. The
operator plugged into the line;
the caller lifted the receiver and stated the number wanted (Hadwiger
& Cochran, 1984, pp. 224-
225). Although the system was quite clumsy and service was frequently
poor, interrupted, or lost
for long periods (Fischer, 1987b), farmers could successfully convey
a message when the lines
were in good condition, each yelling to the next, on down the line.
Many people called their
telephones "whoop and holler" sets (Hadwiger & Cochran, 1984), but
the systems provided
reasonably acceptable services.
In some cases, roughly 15 to 50 farmers established a mutual stock company as
shareholders and they arranged a connection to larger mutual or
commercial companies'
switchboards in town, serving as "feeders" to larger systems such as
Bells (Fischer, 1987b). Wireless User Groups 11
Typically, the mutual companies sustained on a small cash margin,
with marginal equipment, and
delayed maintenance (Fischer, 1987a). However, as the telephone
systems aged and were not well
maintained, the rural systems became withered during the 1920s and
1930s,3 although some of
them remained with poor and marginal uses.
The existence of rural telephony examined above indicates that it
experienced Hughes'
(1983) first phase of innovation and development. However, it was not
been able to progress to
the next phases unlike the radio technology was. There were several
reasons. First, the reason
why the rural areas were underserved by AT&T and other independent
telcos was that they
recognized that those areas would generate low profits, but it was
not because the companies
were uncertain about the telephone technology or the technology's
utility unlike the radio case.
Thus, even if the rural residents constructed their own telephone
networks and were involved in
the innovative activities, those networks and activities could not
surpass those of AT&T and
others from the beginning. The inferior technology of rural co-ops,
however it was innovative,
was hardly adopted by and diffused to other regions where better
technology and more stable
services were available. Second, although the rural residents
established some mutual stock
companies and they functioned as "feeders" to large systems, they did
not have an ambition of
extending their networks beyond their boundaries. As long as they
could sustain and the services
were quite acceptable, there was no reason for them to make inroads
into other areas. After all,
the activities of the rural residents in deploying their own
telephone networks played a
predominant role only in the rural areas but not in other areas as a
whole, which in turn, made
impossible for the rural telephony to move into further phases.
The above examined early history of rural telephony rather uncovers
that those activities
of farmers can be characterized as user autonomy of the people who
constructed and utilized the
farmer lines. However, the case of rural telephony in 1910s and 1920s
suggests that it is
3 Telephone subscription in rural areas dropped from 39% in 1920 to
34% in 1930 and to 25% of all farms
in 1940 (Fischer, 1987a). Wireless User Groups 12
important to understand the ways in which users employ a new
technology rather than the
technology itself in order to fully grasp the role of the technology
in society. This indicates that it
is true that rural telephone co-ops also experimented their
innovations with deficient equipment
like radio amateurs. However, it is hard to find that the mainstream
telephone companies
embraced the innovations of rural co-ops later. Thus, this paper
rather focuses on user autonomy
in that they were mostly independent from the commercial telcos of the time.
Based on the perspective of users, Fischer (1992) emphasizes that
rural telephone co-ops
used the telephone largely to reinforce their existing worlds. They
sought to put the new
technology to their own ends, for example, soothing the loneliness of
farm housewives,
independent of or even in opposition to their corporate counterparts.
That is, farmers retained the
autonomy from the pressure of vendors and from any supposed
technological imperative in the
patterns of adoption and use, although the users' autonomy was
sometimes limited by structures
beyond their control (Fischer, 1992, p. 269). Regardless of other
external factors such as low
income, ignorance from corporate companies, and the role of
government, farmers embraced the
new technology and fulfilled their own needs and demands. In sum,
rural telephony was basically
user-driven diffusion and virtually a bottom-up social movement
(Fischer, 1992).
Once again, however, it should be noted that the process of rural
telephony's diffusion at
the time was highly contingent on business and political contexts
that constrained the user
autonomy of the rural co-ops. After the expiration of Bell patents in
1893-94, competition
between AT&T and independents became intense, and thus, neither of
them wanted to provide
telephone service in the rural areas where little economic interest
was expected, and both had a
distorted perception toward the rural residents by believing that the
rural residents were "ignorant,
hard-headed, and short-sighted" (Fischer, 1987b, p. 11). Thus, there
was no other way for the
rural areas to obtain telephone services except for building the
systems by themselves. Then, after
the Kingsbury Commitment in 1913, as government regulators eventually
pushed telcos to Wireless User Groups 13
provide the services in rural areas with reduced competition, rural
farmer lines faded during the
1920s and 1930s.
Community Networks: Sense of Community
Community networks are a recent phenomenon compared to radio amateurs and
telephone co-ops. Although the term, "community networks," may have a
variety of definitions
depending on specific contexts, it means, in this paper, the local
and community-based
independent projects that provide computer and Internet access for
the people who may not have
access otherwise, including Free-Nets and community technology
centers. In many cases, the
projects were implemented by members of a community who have
themselves organized
community support (in the form of community organizations, such as
libraries, schools, local
governmental bodies, business, etc.) for the resources (e.g., sites
and equipment) and acquired
funding to initiate and develop the projects (Harrison & Stephen,
1999). However, as Schamber
(1996) points out, many community networks were developed ad hoc
without pre-defined
programs. As of 1996, there existed about 390 computerized community
networking projects or
were under development around the world (Schuler, 1996).
The purposes of these community networks are many-fold. In addition
to helping the
people who do not have computer and Internet access bridging the
so-called "digital divide," they
have the goals of reinvigorating the health and well-being of local
communities by facilitating the
exchange of information between individuals in local
communities—"civic networking"
(Harrison & Stephen, 1999)—, and further, stimulating interest and
enhancing participation in
local government by using discussion forums or question and answer
forums. After all, the
ultimate goal of community networks would be to increase community
people's participation in
local affairs through enhanced communication among the people.
One prominent characteristic from the purposes and practices of
community networks is
cohesion among community members or sense of community—feeling of
belonging to members'
community and attitude of reciprocity among the members. Unlike the
salient characteristic of Wireless User Groups 14
radio amateurs and telephone co-ops examined above, the impacts of
community networks may
result in other characteristics as well, such as strong democracy,
social capital, economic
development, and so on (see O'Neil, 2002). Also, it may not be true
that all community networks
exhibit sense of community. However, since "community" networks tend
to promote internal ties
and links among community members within local communities, this
paper focuses on sense of
community among others.
Several studies found that community networks helped increase sense
of community
among the community members (e.g., Mark, Cornebise, & Wahl, 1997;
Stallings, 1996).
According to Stallings' (1996) field study, the participants of
Cleveland Free-Net (CFN), which
was founded in 1986 as the first organization to provide free, public
computer access, described
that they recognized each other, got along with others, and became to
be helpful to others. A
member even said that "if I have some serious stuff to sort out, I
will turn to my CFN buds first"
(Stallings, 1996). The members of CFN organized some forums such as
Boomers Place or 50+,
and they became to know each other through self-descriptive posts and
questions and sometimes
met face to face (Stallings, 1996). Similar expressions from the
members of community networks
were also presented by other networks such as the Great Lakes
Free-Net in Michigan (Stallings,
1996). In sum, it is notable that community networks generally
function as a vehicle for
community building in addition to provision of computer and Internet access.
Meanwhile, the importance of social and institutional factors is not
an exception for
community networks. First of all, it is highly questionable for
community networks to be
sustainable in a long term without sufficient financing, although
computer enthusiasts may
initiate an electronic bulletin board with one or two phone lines,
and then the service grows into a
community information system (Cisler, 1993). As a result, in addition
to community members
themselves, other institutions such as government, libraries,
universities, or nonprofit 501(3)(c)
organizations usually sponsor the networks in many cases (Harrison &
Stephen, 1999).
Depending on who the sponsor is, it is very likely that the networks'
mission and services vary. Wireless User Groups 15
Another significant institutional factor surrounding community
networks is government policy
which endeavors to reduce "digital divide" from the mid 1990s. For
example, the US
government's National Telecommunications and Information Agency's (NTIA)
Telecommunication Infrastructure Assistant Program (TIAAP) supported
many community
networks, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 also indirectly
facilitated the development of
community networks by declaring expansion of universal services to
Internet services.
Unlike the cases of radio amateurs and rural telephone co-ops, it is
hard to say where
community networks have stayed among the phases of Hughes'
technological systems'
development. It is mainly due to the fact that community networks
function as a complementary
system rather than an alternative like rural telephony or an initial
development like amateur radios.
Thus far, this paper examined the prominent characteristics of radio
amateurs, rural
telephone co-ops, and community networks and uncovered that the
predecessors of wireless user
groups were largely affected by social institutional factors in their
early stage. Now, it turns to
wireless user groups and investigates how the characteristics of
their predecessors are presented.
Wireless User Groups
User Innovation and Experimentation
Wireless user groups or wireless community networks may be the
descendent of earlier
predecessors examined above in many aspects. Interestingly, wireless
user groups have to some
extent possessed all the three characteristics above.
As the early history of radio amateurs revealed that at the beginning
of the radio
technology business sector regarded it as a failure from their
standpoint (Douglas, 1986), the
major telephone or cable companies, until recently, largely neglected
the emerging Wi-Fi
technology in general, provision of wireless Internet access from
user groups in particular.
However, all of a sudden, the unprecedented success of Wi-Fi was
accomplished to a great extent
by users, or later by cooperative efforts of wireless user groups.
They began to build their own
network thanks to relatively cheap costs of equipment and extend the
area coverage. Wireless User Groups 16
The most prominent innovative activity of wireless user groups would
be building mesh
networks by themselves. Simply put, mesh network makes it possible
for each receiver of a signal
such as laptop computers to retransmit the signal, and thus, the
receiver also functions as a node
or router on its network. In a mesh network, addition of each node to
the network not only uses
capacity of network but also adds it (The Economist, 2004). In
addition, the mesh architecture
allows users to access to the Internet connection point without
line-of-site, as network paths can
be routed around tall buildings and other obstacles (Barranca, 2004).
Champaign-Urbana
Community Wireless Network (CUWiN) experimented mesh networks and
currently the group
provides wireless access using the mesh technology.4 Simply using an
old 486 PC with a bootable
CD-ROM or bootable floppy that bootstraps a CD-ROM, the group built
decentralized meshbased
Wi-Fi networks (Fleishman, 2004). In this system, once booted, a unit
finds other similar
units without any other configuration or control and forms a mesh. To
make this system work, the
group developed software and succeeded to form a mesh with several
old Pentium 133-based
systems, off-the-shelf Wi-Fi gear, burned CD-ROMs, and ruggedized
boxes using Compact Flash
(Fleishman, 2004). CUWiN also allows other wireless user groups to
obtain the source code of
the software and wants to receive feedbacks in order to improve their
programming (Fleishman,
2004).
Another worthwhile user innovation and experimentation would be war
driving—access
point mapping—, which is a way to search for available wireless
Internet access spots while
driving cars. It is possible by using a GPS unit, a magnetic mount
antenna on the roof of cars, a
laptop or palmtop, and a wireless network card while driving (Keeney,
2004). Actually, war
driving and storage of the data of available wireless Internet access
areas (e.g., Netstumbler) are
an alternative way of mapping currently commercial operators such as
Boingo is doing (Sandvig,
2003). Some of wireless user groups such as Southern California
Wireless Users Group, Pasadena,
CA, display war driving devices after their regular monthly meeting.
They discuss topics related
4 Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network Website, available at
http://www.cuwireless.net. Wireless User Groups 17
with war driving—automotive computer setups, antennas, info-fueling,
wireless security,
automotive cable management, inverters, GPS tracking technology5—and
share information
about the practice of war driving. Although war driving was
hobbyists' enjoyment at first, for
some wireless user groups, war driving is now one of their major activities.6
In addition to the specific activities such as war driving, many
wireless user groups are
conducting tests and configuration of equipment in order to connect
their network to a strong
signal. For example, Alameda Wireless of California recently ran
tests around the area, found a
long distance line-of-sight connection, and successfully created a
wireless network node by
installing a hacked firmware into a Linksys wireless router as a
first step in building an
inexpensive routing station.7 Flickenger (2003) also describes how he
built his Sebastopol
network by experimentation, visioning possibilities of long-distance,
low-cost, high-speed
communications (see pp. 129-132). And, even some wireless user groups
such as South Bay
Wireless Network declared in their mission statement that they are
intended as a platform for
wireless experimentation and a forum for wireless experimenters.8
These extensive user
experimentations of wireless user groups have made it possible for
them to play an important role
in emergency situations such as 9/11 disaster, when NYCwireless
quickly assembled free access
nodes in areas that had no other telecommunications facilities
available (Flickenger, 2003).
As the radio amateurs organized a larger confederation of ARRL,
CommunityWireless.org9 was established as an umbrella organization
representing the needs of
the emerging community networks, although its status and relationship
with individual wireless
user groups are somewhat ambiguous.
5 Southern California Wireless Users Group website, available at
http://www.socalwug.org/special_events.htm.
6 Personal interview with the leaders of Southern California Wireless
Users Group (2004, January 24).
7 Alameda Wireless website, available at http://alamedawireless.org.
8 South Bay Wireless Network website, available at
http://sbay.org/wireless-net.html.
9 Community Wireless website, available at
http://www.communitywireless.org. Wireless User Groups 18
As examined, it is obvious that wireless user groups are involved in
various kinds of
innovative activities and experimentations. Here, it should be noted
that the innovative activities
of wireless user groups are qualitatively different from those of
radio amateurs. While the
'tinkering' of radio amateurs was limited in their cottage, the above
examined experimentations
of mesh networks or war-driving were employed by the mainstream
players soon after their
introduction. Currently, cities like Cerritos and San Mateo, CA, are
using city-wide mesh
networks and commercial vendors such as Tropos supply the mesh
technology. Also, war driving
and storage of the data of available wireless Internet access areas
are adopted by the companies
such as Boingo or iPass. It means that the innovative activities of
wireless user groups truly
fueled the transformation of Wi-Fi technology from the phase of
invention and development to
that of technology transfer. As Hughes (1983) describes, wireless
user groups initiate the
invention of innovative ideas, then engineers and business sectors
preside over the technology's
growth in the later phase.
One final point here is that user innovation and experimentation of
wireless user groups
are not conducted without the influences of social, economic, and
political environments. For
example, the wireless boom has been possible due to rapidly
decreasing prices of equipment,
standardization of the 802.11b technology, widely spread atmosphere
of building ubiquitous
alternative networks, and government policy of no requirement of
license to use the spectrum for
the technology.
User Autonomy
Although there are two kinds of wireless user groups, one is those
that provide wireless
Internet access and the other is those that simply arrange regular
meetings and share technical
information without wireless Internet access, both are voluntary
organizations. In the case of the
groups that provide Internet access, most of them declare that their
vision is to provide the service
that is equivalent to or even better than DSL or cable modem for free
or at lower cost, promoting
and building public wireless networks together with community
support. Or, in the case of the Wireless User Groups 19
groups that do not provide wireless Internet access, they claim that
they are open groups of
innovators and enthusiasts devoted to promoting wireless technology
through the development of
technical skills and education. In either case, one of the prominent
characteristics is user
autonomy of the participants.
As rural telephone co-ops built their own networks, some wireless user groups
constructed wireless networks where cable or telephone companies
rejected deploying cable
modem or DSL lines due to low profits. For example, NoCat10 of Sonoma
County, California, or
Longmont Community Wireless11 of Longmont, Colorado, was built by
users themselves,
investing their own personal money into the project. These networks
are free community-owned
distribution systems that created an alternative infrastructure based
on the community spirit. Even
if other commercial services are available, many wireless user groups
such as Bay Area Wireless
Users Group (BAWUG),12 Alameda Wireless,13 or CollegeTerrace.net,14
are providing wireless
Internet access creating an alternative way to have access to the
Internet. In addition, encouraged
by the success of Golden Hill project in which SoCalFreeNet.org15 of
San Diego negotiated with
property owners of the Golden Hill area and helped build a wireless
network, the group extends
free hotspot projects in Southern California. In most cases, these
efforts are from the interest of
getting away from the high cost of current high speed Internet
providers or taking advantage of
the most cost-effective technology, keeping high level of network reliability.
These wireless user groups emphasize that they are "self-help"
organizations.16 Basically,
each equipment or node owner is responsible for the installation,
operation, and maintenance of
his or her own equipment, but group members provide a team effort
when it is needed. Especially,
establishing community wireless networks requires cooperation of a
variety of technical skills and
10 NoCatNet website, available at http://nocat.net.
11 Longmont Community Wireless website, available at
http://long-wire.net/about.html.
12 Bay Area Wireless Users Group website, available at http://www.bawug.org.
13 Alameda Wireless website, available at http://alamedawireless.org.
14 CollegeTerrace.net website, available at http://www.collegeterrace.net.
15 SoCalFreeNet.org website, available at http://socalfreenet.org.
16 Alameda Wireless website, available at http://alamedawireless.org.
Wireless User Groups 20
expertise, such as knowledge in networking and radio technologies.
With the help and
encouragement, the members learn how they participate in the network
and take responsibility of
maintaining the network. In this process, technical skills and talent
are accumulated among the
participants and the network becomes more robust. After all, wireless
user groups are selffunding,
self-organized, and self-supported organizations that provide either
an alternative
Internet service or a place for discussion about Wi-Fi for their members.
Based on these observations, it can be said that the Wi-Fi technology
is at the stage of
system growth of Hughes' framework. Of course, even if it is now at
the system growth phase, it
does not mean that it is a full-fledged scale. Rather, it will be
fairer to say that only some clues of
system growth can be found as illustrated above.17 Since the IEEE's
adoption of 802.11b standard
in 1999, Wi-Fi has seen a great deal of technology transfer not only
in the US but also around the
world. It was possible mainly due to the activities of grassroot
community networks who
embraced the future of the Wi-Fi technology. The entrance of
mainstream players was only after
the grassroots' contributions already reached a threshold for further
development. However, it is
still wireless user groups who have the driver's seat in the future
of Wi-Fi development even
though some of the businesses took over many applications of wireless
user groups. Many
business interests are still hesitant to adopt or dislike the new
technology because of their stakes
at their traditional infrastructure. In the meantime, the growth of
Wi-Fi systems is continuously
being achieved and more advanced technologies such as WiMAX have been
discussed, whereas
competing technologies such as HomeRF have been largely deserted.
Moreover, commercial
operators such as T-Mobile are currently engaged in Wi-Fi services
and government policies are
being arranged to shape the future landscape of Wi-Fi development as
in the spectrum allocation
policy. These facts suggest that the Wi-Fi technology is now
undergoing the phase of system
growth, and in Bar and Galperin's (2004) words, it is at a critical juncture.
17 Sandvig (2003) is very cautious on this and he says we can see
Hughes' idea of stage one activity when
he evaluates a British wireless user group, Consume. Wireless User Groups 21
Sense of Community
As community networks examined earlier presented strong sense of
community, that
characteristic can be also found in wireless users groups in various
ways. Like community
networks provide forums for discussions among the members, which can
be the place for getting
to know each other and sharing information among the participants,
most wireless user groups
offer discussion forums through monthly meetings or mailing lists.
In addition to providing the venue for building community among the
participants
through those meetings or mailing lists, a number of wireless user
groups try to be closer to the
community residents. For example, CollegeTerrace.net is proud of
having a strong neighborhood
cohesiveness and community spirit. Although it is partly due to its
location (Palo Alto, CA), the
wireless user group has many networking experts and they are willing
to provide time and
expertise to help neighbors build the wireless network. Any resident
of College Terrace can
participate in the activities of the group and some residents
contribute even accounting of the
group and other professional services.18 Also, for any resident to
receive the modem service
network access, he/she can get the service with an activation fee and
without any further payment.
If he/she wants broadband service (5 Mb/sec downstream and 1 Mb/sec
upstream), the cost will
be about $20 per month initially, but it may drop over time depending
on the numbers of paying
neighbors.19 That is, the cost is split across the members. These
practices of helping each other
and sharing cost of the residents' wireless network have promoted
reciprocity and cohesion
among the members.
Alameda Wireless has the Golden Rule, which says "do unto others as
you would have
other do unto you,"20 and it facilitates the members to help each
other with understanding of
mutual benefit. In addition, some of the members offer their home as
a meeting place so that the
meetings can be run friendly and informally. Moreover, when there is
a new member who needs
18 CollegeTerrace.net website, available at http://www.collegeterrace.net.
19 CollegeTerrace.net website, available at http://www.collegeterrace.net.
20 Alameda Wireless website, available at http://alamedawireless.org.
Wireless User Groups 22
transport services, the transport can be obtained from the current
members' shared use of the
Alameda Wireless network equipment.21
Airshare.org of San Diego is not much different from other wireless
user groups in
presenting its effort to enhance the members' sense of community. The
group announces in their
website that the value of their activities is being altruistic, thus,
the members are supposed to help
and share with each other.22 It also claims that the merchant, the
rude, and the partial cannot be
found in their group.23 In some cases, wireless user groups
participate in larger community events
by providing temporary wireless Internet access for the events. For
example, Southern California
Wireless Users Group of Pasadena, CA, has provided wireless network
service for the annual
Southern California Linux Expos, and volunteered for the WIMAXCON
conference, both of
which were held in downtown Los Angeles.24
In sum, aforementioned descriptions of wireless groups indicate that
they have sense of
community among the participants. Not only do they construct their
own networks or provide an
environment for discussion and sharing information, but they also
generate social ties among their
members both in the groups and in the communities in which they reside.
Differences between Wireless User Groups and Their Predecessors
Although this study has investigated the similarities between
wireless user groups and
their early predecessors, it is also true that they are different
from each other in many aspects.
First of all, it is necessary to examine if the people involve in
wireless user groups are really
"amateurs" as those of radio amateurs. As examined earlier, radio
amateurs were mostly middle
class white boys or young men who believed their technical expertise
could serve as the driving
force for individual success and societal progress (Douglas, 1986).
By contrast, the people in
wireless user groups are to a large extent the ones who have other
regular jobs in engineering or
21 Alameda Wireless website, available at http://alamedawireless.org.
22 Airshare.org website, available at http://aireshare.org.
23 Airshare.org website, available at http://aireshare.org.
24 Personal interview with Southern California Wireless Users Group
and Southern California Wireless
Users Group website, available at
http://www.socalwug.org/special_events.htm. Wireless User Groups 23
computer networking and they rarely think that involvement in
wireless activities will lead their
individual success or promote social well-being. In most cases, Wi-Fi
people, not group founders
or leaders but ordinary participants, simply want to take advantage
of the state-of-art technology
rather than to be an invention hero. In other words, in a stricter
sense, Wi-Fi people may not be
the amateurs as radio amateurs were.
This provides an implication to the future development of wireless
user groups. Radio
amateurs by and large embraced the technology wholeheartedly, but
Wi-Fi people are, in a sense,
opportunistic and self-satisfactory. Some people want to jump into
the commercial world or
willing to have a partnership with business sectors leveraging the
knowledge and experience from
wireless user groups. Moreover, the participants of wireless user
groups contend with staying as a
"social club" (Sandvig, 2003) of technology-savvy hobbyists and do
not envision building an
alternative infrastructure. Thus, it is somewhat questionable to
expect that they have passion to
devote themselves to user experimentation, and ultimately,
construction of an alternative
infrastructure.
Second, although a significant number of wireless user groups are
building their own
networks due to the lack of commercial high speed Internet services,
many of them construct their
networks regardless of presence of other available services. For
instance, many Wi-Fi networks
have been built in large metropolitan cities where cable operators or
telephone companies eagerly
deployed their networks. This fact is contrasting with the rural
telephone co-op cases in which
there was no alternative telephone service otherwise. It means that
wireless service in many cases
may be an option but not a necessity, and thus, it is likely that
Wi-Fi people have less incentive in
building their networks and operation compared to the rural co-ops.
This implies that the participants of wireless user groups may
abandon Wi-Fi when other
services are available with lower cost. That is, Wi-Fi may be
valuable only when benefits exceed
costs and may lose the ground for further development if the
technology is subdued by other
commercial technologies such as 3G down the road. As rural telephony
faded away with the Wireless User Groups 24
expansion of AT&T's networks, the trajectory of Wi-Fi networks could
repeat the precedent with
a short-circuited existence.
Finally, unlike community networks where sense of community was
achieved mostly
through altruistic behaviors, wireless user groups present
self-interest also. While community
networks are operated by the aim of helping the people who have
deficient access to computer
and the Internet in order to fill in the gap between the information
haves and the have-nots,
wireless user groups are rather gathering of technical elites even
though they also develop sense
of community among the members. As Sandvig (2003) properly points
out, while community
networks are outward-looking in that they build internal community
through an explicit mission
of helping outside the groups that are disadvantaged, wireless user
groups are inward-looking by
enhancing their own interests through individual empowerment in
technology. Even some
wireless groups declare that their activities are a combination of
self-interest and community
spirit.25 In sum, although both community networks and wireless user
groups generate sense of
community, the boundary of coherence and ties among the members are
quite different from each
other.
The meaning of these differences is quite value-oriented in its
effects. One of the
important rationales for building wireless alternative infrastructure
has been to bypass the wired
networks that require huge capital investment. By doing so, it is
possible to help the
disadvantaged use the Internet for free or at lower cost. However, if
wireless user groups who
already have technical expertise and affordability are inward-looking
and present relatively
exclusive sense of community, the benefits of Wi-Fi networks may not
be widespread to society
as a whole. Rather, the gap between the haves and the have-nots could
ironically be exacerbated.
Nevertheless, these differences and their consequences may not outweigh the
implications the earlier predecessors provide for the evolution of
wireless user groups, although
the differences should be kept in mind for a critical analysis of
wireless user groups.
25 Seattle Wireless website, available at
http://www.seattlewireless.net. Wireless User Groups 25
Conclusion
As demonstrated above, this paper examined the prominent
characteristics of radio
amateurs, rural telephone co-ops, and community networks and compared
them with those of
wireless user groups. Also, the paper emphasized that the
technologies were largely affected by
social, institutional factors that surrounded them, as the social
constructivist approach claims.
One important lesson from the historical evidence of radio amateurs
and rural telephone
co-ops would be that the trajectory of a technology may stop at the
first phase of systems
development or may go on to further phases depending on social and
institutional factors as well
as technology itself. The radio case is more similar to the case of
the current Wi-Fi. As the radio
technology was experimented at the beginning by grassroots of the
time, Wi-Fi was extensively
utilized by individual users and wireless user groups before the
mainstream actors step in. Unlike
the rural telephony which stopped at the first phase of invention and
development, the radio
technology progressed to the phase of substantial momentum of Hughes
(1983) framework. Thus,
it can be induced that Wi-Fi has the potential of further development
and ultimately constructing
an alternative infrastructure. Given the fact that the innovative
activities of wireless user groups
are more fundamental than those of radio amateurs in facilitating
technology transfer, the future
of Wi-Fi is more promising.
As radio amateurs and rural telephone co-ops played a critical role
in the initial phase,
Wi-Fi and wireless user groups also stand at an important juncture
(Bar & Galperin, 2004),
considering the unexpected success of Wi-Fi and mushrooming of
wireless user groups beyond
anyone's prediction. However, it is still far from being an
infrastructure. Then, it is necessary to
have a normative judgment with regard to whether Wi-Fi and wireless
user groups should be
further developed because there are many interests at stake such as
cable operators, wired and
wireless telephone companies, equipment vendors, as well as
policymakers. This paper claims
that Wi-Fi should be fully blossomed to an infrastructure level and
the activities of wireless user
groups should be more encouraged. To that end, social and
institutional factors should be Wireless User Groups 26
supportive to the activities of wireless user groups so that they can
play a crucial role in the
evolution of the technology. This paper provides a few suggestions
below for the technology to
go beyond Hughes's (1983) system growth phase.
First, local governments should be active in supporting and
encouraging the activities of
wireless user groups in addition to their own efforts to build
wireless networks. For example,
local governments may share technical information with wireless user
groups or invite them to
the local wireless projects or events. These can help wireless user
groups overcome their attitude
of inward-looking. Of course, local governments should not step in
the autonomy of the groups,
however. In this regard, the recent announcement of the mayor of San
Francisco that the city aims
to cover the entire region with wireless networks is telling.
Second, incumbent license holders such as wireless carriers with 3G
do not necessarily
oppose the development of Wi-Fi. The future of the relationship
between Wi-Fi and 3G still
remains to be seen (Lehr & McKnight, 2003), and the recent
development of the radio technology
such as software radio or "underlay" makes it possible to share
spectrum reducing the
interference problem.
Finally, the portion of unlicensed spectrum should be increased over
time in order for
wireless user groups to actively involve in experimentation of the
technology. The previous FCC
chairman, Michael Powel said that he would like to see himself more
as a speed cop than as a real
estate agent (The Economist, 2004), which means that open spectrum
policy is now a
considerable option. In fact, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
(NTIA) and the FCC recently proposed an additional 10 MHz of
unlicensed spectrum (The
Economist, 2004). The federal government's efforts to open up more
spectrum should be
continued.
In conclusion, wireless user groups have the potential to be the
pioneers for further
development of Wi-Fi as their predecessors were, and for them to pave
the way for the
development of the technology, social and institutional supports need
to be broadly provided. Wireless User Groups 27
References
Bar, F., & Riis, A. M. (2000). Tapping user-driven innovation: A new
rationale for universal
service. The Information Society, 16, 1-10.
Bar, F., & Galperin, H. (2004). Building the wireless Internet
infrastructure: From cordless
Ethernet archipelagos to wireless grids. Communication & Strategies,
54(2), 45-68.
Barranca, M. (2004). Unlicensed wireless broadband profiles:
Community, municipal and
commercial success stories. Spectrum Policy Program Working Paper, New America
Foundation.
Benkler, Y. (2002). Some economics of wireless communications. Paper
presented at
Telecommunication Policy Research Conference. Alexandria, VA.
Cisler, S. (1993). Community computer networks: Building electronic
greenbelts. Available at
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/community/resources/greenbelts.txt.
Douglas, S. J. (1986). Amateur operators and American broadcasting:
Shaping the future of radio.
In J. J. Com (Ed.), Imagining tomorrow: History, technology and the
American future (pp.
35-57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Douglas, S. J. (1989). Inventing American broadcasting, 1899-1922.
Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Faulhaber, G.R. & Farber, D. (2002). Spectrum management: Property
rights, markets, and the
commons. Wharton School Working Paper. University of Pennsylvania.
Fischer, C. S. (1987a). Technology's retreat: The decline of rural
telephony, 1920-1940. Social
Science History, 11, 295-327.
Fischer, C. S. (1987b). The revolution in rural telephony, 1900-1920.
Journal of Social History,
21, 5-26.
Fischer, C. S. (1992). America calling: A social history of the
telephone to 1940. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Fleishman, G. (2004, April 28). Open source mesh group releases
software, discusses social goals. Wireless User Groups 28
Wi-Fi Networking News. Available at
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/003279.html.
Flickenger, R. (2003). Building wireless community networks, 2nd Ed.
Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly
& Associates.
Hadwiger, D. F., & Cochran, C. (1984). Rural telephones in the United
States. Agricultural
History, 58, 221-238.
Haring, K. (2003). The "free men" of ham radio. Technology and
Culture, 44(4), 734-761.
Harrison, T. M., & Stephen, T. (1999). Researching and creating
community networks. In S.
Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for
examining the Net
(pp. 221-241). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hopper, D. I. (2002). Secret service agents probe wireless networks
in Washington. Available at
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/899.
Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of power: Electrification in Western
society, 1880-1930.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Keeney, F. (2004). Vacation war driving. Available at
http://www.socalwug.org/fk-vwd1.htm.
Lehr, W., & McKnight, L. (2003). Wireless Internet access: 3G vs.
WiFi? Telecommunications
Policy, 27(5-6), 351-370.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1985) (Eds.). The social shaping of
technology: How the
refrigerator got its hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Mark, J., Cornebise, J., & Wahl, E. (1997). Community technology
centers: Impact on individual
participants and their communities. Newton, MA: Education Development
Center, Inc.
Maxwell, J. (2000). Amateur radio: 100 years of discovery. QST, 84(1), 28-34.
O'Neil, D. (2002). Assessing community informatics: A review of
methodological approaches for
evaluating community networks and community technology centers.
Internet Research,
12(1), 76-102.
Pool, I. d. S. (1974). Introduction. In I. d. S. Pool (Ed.), The
social impact of the telephone.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wireless User Groups 29
Sandvig, C. (2003). Assessing cooperative action in 802.11 networks.
Paper presented at the
Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Washington, DC.
Sawhney, H. (2003). Wi-Fi networks and the rerun of the cycle. Info,
5(6), 25-33.
Schamber, L. (1996). Assessing impact from the outset: Establishing a
strategic research program
for a new community-based information system. In Proceedings of the
American Society
for Information Science Mid-Year Meeting (pp. 207-214). Medford, NJ:
Information
Today.
Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for Change. New
York: ACM Press.
Stallings, B. (1996). A critical study of three Free-Net community
networks. Available at
http://www.ofcn.org/whois/ben/Free-Nets/.
The Economist (2004, August 14). Special report: On the same
wavelength—Spectrum policy.
The Economist, 372.
Walker, J. (2001). Rebels on the air: An alternative history of radio
in America. New York: New
York University Press.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. In
W. H. Dutton (Ed.),
Information and communication technologies: Visions and realities
(pp. 53-67). New
York: Oxford University Press.
|
