2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.08.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wireless is changing the policy calculus for municipal broadband

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in other cases, they are galvanized by an existing market failure [23]. In certain cases the infrastructure can be developed and service delivered, but very few of the members will have a need for it.…”
Section: Community Based Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in other cases, they are galvanized by an existing market failure [23]. In certain cases the infrastructure can be developed and service delivered, but very few of the members will have a need for it.…”
Section: Community Based Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some cases, governance relationships also altered established structures of governance and autonomy: for example, Fiser (2009) describes how First Nations in Northwestern Ontario used the construction of the communications network as a means of concentrating funding, expertise, and governing autonomy. Scholars have since focused on the organizational, social, and cultural aspects of community networks, categorizing organizational models for non-profit networks (Tapia, Maitland, & Stone, 2006) and examining their design, management (Ortiz & Tapia, 2008), and ownership (Gillett, 2006;Lehr, Sirbu, & Gillett, 2006;Middleton, Longford, Clement, & Bryne Potter, 2006). Other work has critiqued references to the public good in the language of planning documents (Shaffer, 2007).…”
Section: Scholarly Perspectives On Local Wireless Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Municipal networks can be justified based on the assumption that the municipality has a function in providing basic infrastructure services. Such services should a) be used by all citizens and are considered as essential services; b) have the characteristics of a natural monopoly (or have some form of a public good); and c) be responsible for significant spillover benefits, which entail the role of government or complementary to it (Lehr et al, 2006). This rationale has frequently been used in close correspondence to the concept of Universal Service Obligations (USO).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%