News - Typology of community-centred connectivity initiatives

Articles

Typology of community-centred connectivity initiatives

Source By Carlos Rey-Moreno
23 hours ago

The term “community network” has become something of a catch-all description of a wide range of telecommunication networking activities at the community level that have emerged over the last several years. The organisational form, scale and priorities of those emerging models can vary substantially, which makes it challenging for different stakeholders to grasp the concept clearly. In addition, the various definitions of community networks can be challenging to translate into concrete action, and may lead to a perception of the concept as vague and poorly formulated.Some of these existing definitions were written before the evolution of the models for community connectivity seen in recent years, and are therefore inconsistent with practices on the ground. It has become evident that any single definition of community networks would fail to do justice to the richness and diversity of the different types of community participation, organisational and service delivery models being implemented. To address this diversity of initiatives yet still provide a concrete framework for analysis, two interrelated processes have been conducted. We have developed:

A set of 13 principles that capture the ethos of community-centred connectivity
A typology of community-centred connectivity initiatives developed through a combination of research and direct experience of the Local Networks (LocNet) initiative to delineate identifiable models that have emerged.

The principles and their preamble are presented in a separate publication, while this document presents the typology of emerging models. The methodology followed to develop this typology is included in Appendix 1.This typology and the principles should be considered documents in dialogue for thinking through setting up a community-centred connectivity initiative. Where possible, we have tried to align the language in the two documents, which were developed through different approaches, but in some instances the language here is necessarily more technical for the purposes of clarity. This typology is about mapping the complexities of different models so that communities are aware of the potential options available, while the principles offer a considered qualitative account of issues to consider when deciding which model to implement. This typology is also a reflection of the growing recognition that there are many types of initiatives that, without being developed by the community itself, can be "community-centred". These initiatives are often established in communities by what can be considered long-term “partners”, and besides providing very necessary connectivity services, they have other positive social impacts such as training and hiring people from the community, procuring services from the community, and reducing access costs considerably. They have a “social mission” or, as included in the principles, are concerned with the “well-being” of the community. Besides this, it is acknowledged that there will be communities not interested or able (with a rational use of resources) to provide connectivity to themselves sustainably. This includes private businesses that were created (or evolved) to have a strong social mission and are generating benefits to the communities and who felt excluded from the community networks movement. It is important to acknowledge that this is a first attempt at creating this typology, and it is likely to evolve and be improved in the future. We hope that this typology will offer a sharper lens through which to see community-centred connectivity initiatives, contributing to clearer communication with potential partners and stakeholders, including donors and regulators, and presenting communities with a practical set of options. Ultimately, we hope it supports the growing movement of community-centred initiatives across the world, by incorporating many valuable lessons from those who felt previously excluded from the “community networks” definitions and models but are also contributing to closing the persistent digital and development divides that most communities are still facing.