Last mile & first mile, access & production

Despite significant advances in technology, more than two-thirds of the world’s population remains without access to communication facilities. The use of wireless technology could transform this situation, bringing low-cost, accessible information and communication technologies to those who have so far been left on the wrong side of the ‘digital divide.’ However, in many countries, particularly in the developing world, governments have been slow to reduce restrictions that limit the use of this technology.

Reading an excellent resource on last mile wireless access published by PANOS today, it occured to me to point out the error in pointing to technologies such as Wi-Fi and WiMax as purely last mile access mechanisms. To be sure, wireless technologies including 3G mobile telephones will take the web and internet to places where PC based, wired network access can’t even hope to reach.

However, the important point that many forget is that no longer are we simply talking about internet access, but of content production as well. MMS, SMS, mobile audio and video, New Media and Citizen Journalism, for exmaple, are all supported by some form of wireless broadband network access. In this light, WiFi and the related concert of large footprint access frameworks are better seen as first mile production and last mile access solution.

In fact, the true potential of last mile access is only realised by how much the communities use the internet and web. New wireless access frameworks are creating wholly new ways of producing and accessing content. Herein lies the potential for peacebuilding – enabling many-to-many and one-to-many communication in the vernacular as well as English, using multimedia as well as text, to ensure the widest spectrum of community participation possible.

This then is what is most exciting about new last mile access frameworks – the transformation of knowledge production from a cart-wheel model – where knowledge flows from the centre outwards – to more democratic constallations of community driven knowledge production and sharing.

Desperate for a revolution

A post on Moju forces us to think about the degree to which the internet actually helps democratic social transformation. Two paragraphs stand out in the article for me:

In short, where the hell is everybody?

I’ll tell you where they are. They’re at home, tuning in to root for the next “American idol.” They’re plugged into their iPods, utterly self-involved and disconnected from what lies just outside their doors. They’re spending 25 hours a week playing video games in virtual worlds instead of fighting to save the only world that really matters. They’re surfing porn. They’re text messaging and e-mailing and scheming to close that next big deal. They’re flogging their useless crap on eBay.

and

The real voices of dissent and engagement are found on the internet these days, but the internet is simply too diffuse to effectively galvanize a revolution.

And we desperately need a revolution.

Debates on the efficacy of internet used as a tool for social activism aren’t new. While such activism may already be prevelant in the US countries like China for example are rebelling against internet based activism by even tighter controls on information flows. While some point to what they see as an abundance of social activism on the internet with scholarly articles pointing to the complex interplay of in-country socio-political dynamics and diaspora engagement facilitated through the internet / web as being ultimately beneficial to democracy, such as the case of Burma.

But really, are we making a difference? In “flogging our useless crap on eBay” is the global and local diffusion of those on the web, often behind veils of annonymity, necessarily an indicator of the failure of internet activism?

I think not.

Firstly, let us acknowledge that much of the work done in support of peacebuilding, human security, reconciliation and the overall strengthening of democracy in a post-conflict context is done by grassroots organisations with little or no recognition in the mainstream media. Their work is largely invisible in the analysis of those who conflate civil society with large urban NGOs who may run peacebuilding campaigns on the internet that benefit communities far less than the work done on a daily basis by those at the hinterlands of donor awareness and the frontlines of violence.

But again, this is no measure of web / internet based activism, which addresses and galvanises ideas and action from a very different target group. For instance, as I’ve noted earlier, games can be a powerful force to focus attention on the plight of those who need help for sustainable development. (See Third World Farmer, Technologies of Play: Video Games and Gender, Darfur is Dying : Using games for political activism). Campaigns such as Irrepresible by Amnesty International now seek to bring together web based movements in support of the Freedom of Expression with activists on the ground in order to create stronger networks of Human Rights activists worldwide.

And there have been social revolutions that have been aided by the use of technology and internet technologies, in particular mobiles, with new studies that explore the potential of such technologies in the promoting democracy after a social revolution – such as the case of Nepal.

On the other hand, the lack of mobilisation by people on account of complex cultural & socio-political reasons cannot then be blamed on the medium. The internet is a tool for communication. Used effectively it can galvanise ideas into action. Used ineffectively, it adds little to processes of democratisation or peace. The issue is not so much that people surf porn, use eBay or live in virtual reality, but how the web and internet can interest these people in social activism.

The crux of the problem is in the creation of content that is able to kindle the interest of those unused to the drudgery and often, very real danger, of activism on the ground and then how to translate ideas expressed online into actions that support real world change. One way is through the capacity building of a larger spectrum of civil society organisations so as to enable them to tap into support online to help them in their real-world work – either through knowledge transfers or through funding needed to continue their projects. The other is to encourage those who share their ideas online to explore ways to link up with organisations that seem to be doing similar work on the ground – from international actors such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or UN agencies to local civil society initiatives supported by NGOs & businesses and local grassroots initiatives that don’t necessarily have websites, but are contactable through telephone.

Fora such as Moju and various personal blogs in Sri Lanka offer the space for new thinking on the dual transformation of the conflict necessary in Sri Lanka – transformation of the State and transformation of the LTTE. Activism to support such a process of democratisation is already supported by a concert of local, regional and international governmental and non-governmental actors.

The power of the internet and web is that;

• you can support these activities through open discussion on the web, which the organisations can then use as a measure of support for their work
• you can flag initiatives you think are worth supporting financially through donations
• you can flag projects that people can volunteer in to help build local capacities
• you can use mobile technologies and Skype to create discussions amongst youth in Sri Lanka and in the diaspora on helping youth affected by the conflict
• you can flag anecdotal stories from the field that engender hope
• you can flag story ideas for the media to write on
• bring to attention the issues of conflict and peace to those in urban areas not usually interested in them
  post photos on Flickr that show communities engaged in initiatives that help strengthen democracy, development and human security
• you can use meeting that bring together young bloggers to talk about ways that collaboratively highlight issues related to democracy and human rights
• post soundbites and videos from personal interviews with mentors or those working in the field in Sinhala, Tamil and English
• produce short documentaries that are pod-cast friendly – making content that’s hip and interesting to those in urban areas, but at the same time address issues of peace and conflict

The diffusion of the internet needs to be seen as a strength, not a weakness and imaginative content production that harnesses the sheer diversity of opinion on online forums to effectively strengthen real-world change is only held back on account of our restrictive understanding of using the internet for social change.

Social change is a complex long-term affair. As a (Sri Lankan?) blogger points out:

When revolutions DO work, it’s because they’re the culmination of years of foundation-laying.

This was certainly the case of Nepal, where a decade of slow, deeply frustrating and complex processes aimed at building and strengthening democracy managed to create the wide-scale public support necessary to unequivocally tell the King his time was up.

There is a lesson there for all of us who seek instant revolutions.

Related posts:
Nepal – Technology and Democracy
Public Service Broadcasting – using technology for democracy
Irrepressible – Amnesty International
Defeating repressive regimes
Defeating repressive regimes – Take 2

Interesting websites:
An Introduction to Activism on the Internet
Moju
The Virtual Activist 2.0
Handbook for bloggers and cyber-dissidents
Networking Dissent in Burma
International Internet Activism

Third World Farmer

From a post by Paul Currion comes the pointer to Third World Farmer.

Playing the game is a humbling experience – but the usage of “3rd World” is not without controversy. Hopefully, the unfortunate naming of the game doesn’t in any way take away from the importance of its message – which as Paul points out:

“is not exactly a barrel of laughs, but it’s message is clear.”

Irrepressible – Safeguarding Rights on and off the ‘net

Information Policy carried news of a BBC report on Amnesty International’s new campaign on the protection of Human Rights on and off the internet – called Irrepressible.

Called Irrepressible.info, the campaign will revolve around a website with the same name. While the human rights group has run separate campaigns about web repression and the jailing of net dissidents before now, Irrepressible.info will bring them all together.

It aims to throw light on the many different ways that the freedom to use the net is limited by governments.

The OpenNet Initiative has an interesting map on the degrees of internet freedom, through which it is apparent that the countries that most censor content production and dissemination through the internet are also those with suspect human rights regimes. As the BBC website reports:

“The internet has become a new frontier in the struggle for human rights,” said Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty International.

Its potential to empower and educate, to allow people to share and mobilise opinion has led to government crackdowns. Irrepressible.info will harness the power of the internet and of individuals to oppose repression and stand up for free speech,” said Ms Allen.”

Related posts:
Defeating repressive regimes
Defeating repressive regimes – Take 2
RSF 2006 Internet Freedom Report
Nepal – Technology and Democracy

Strangling the growth of content

If the promise of broadband (wired and wireless) access is that higher-speeds facilitate greater knowledge sharing and content development, Sri Lanka is committed to severely throttling this potential. As a post in Lirneasia highlights, the unhealthy primacy given to the numbers of users in a given network as opposed to the development of the Quality of Service (QoS) enjoyed by subscribers – in this case, getting the broadband speeds one pays for, which is never the case at the moment with a 2Mbps ADSL connection from SLT delivering 1’s and 0’s slower than a snail in heat – is bound to stifle the growth of ICT in Sri Lanka.

If, as some of the commentors suggest, SLT is also contemplating an upward revision of ADSL access tariffs, this would put Sri Lanka further in the dark ages of telecoms and ICT development, where the norm is to provide the best possible access at the least possible cost, in order to create profits through the large scale adoption of large footprint wireless broadband access and / or high volume usage of wired / wireless broadband access. Surely, if the e-society vision of ICTA is to hold materialise, users need the bandwidth promised by ADSL and related wired / wireless technologies to create the content that will underpin knowledge sharing frameworks in the future – from citizens journalism which includes video and audio, civil society driven initiatives that encourage sharing of knowledge resources within and between grassroots networks, government driven initiatives to promote greater citizen interaction in governance frameworks and for-profit business driven ICT initiatives that seek to establish, through the promotion of products and interactive services on the web and through mobiles, a greater market share.

This intricate concert of content production, dissemination and consumption, is founded upon the sustained availability of broadband bandwidth and not a seething mass of users who are discontent with a deplorable level of service and high costs of access. If, as this blog promotes, peacebuilding is an important use of ICT in the future and is already on the roadmap of ICTA, SLT would do well to heed the the existing and future needs of users and provide them with the access speeds Sri Lanka requires to transform the rhetoric of ICT and the promise of ICT4D into reality.

Cellphones and conflict

Came across an interesting post on Lirneasia on the use of mobiles in conflict zones.

I doubt that the Sri Lankan government will allow cellular service to be available any time soon in the North. But at least it gives the security agencies some food for thought. The Indian government was similarly reluctant to have cellular service in Kashmir, but the Indian security agencies are their biggest proponents now.

Nurturing the future generations of ODR

Colin Rule, in a characteristically insightful and succint blog post, explores the need to nurture the next generation of thought-leaders in ODR. I’ve emphasised earlier the need to ensure that new out-of-the-box thinking inspired by young thinkers is the heart of conflict transformation over the long-term.

It’s interesting that Colin makes the same point regarding the future of ODR, ending on this thoughtful note:

However, the beauty of ICT is that the conversation can be global. ODR’s power comes from its freedom from the bonds of geography, so it’s only appropriate that we should innovate from the same perspective. If I have any aspiration for my work in ODR it is to help to nurture the development of these new sources of innovation, wherever they are in the world, and not to be fearful or resistant when the next revolutionary idea is expressed.

An Asian Perspective on Online Mediation

Melissa Conley-Tyler and I co-authored a paper in 2005 that was published in the launch issue of the Asian Journal on Mediation.

Abstract

New information and communication technologies such as the internet offer new capabilities for mediators. Online dispute resolution (ODR) refers to dispute resolution processes such as mediation assisted by information technology, particularly the internet. At least 115 ODR sites and services have been launched to date, resolving more than 1.5 million disputes. A number of these online dispute resolution services have been launched in the Asia Pacific including examples from China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and Sri Lanka.

However this paper challenges the current paradigm being used for development of online dispute resolution and its application to the Asia Pacific region. Instead, it suggests that a more Asia-Pacific perspective needs to be taken that responds to the patterns of technology adoption in this region. In particular, the next generation of online dispute resolution systems will need to reflect the rich diversity of cultures in Asia and its unique socio-political textures. In doing so, these ODR systems will need to address peacebuilding and conflict transformation using technologies already prevalent in the region, like mobile telephony and community internet radio. Practical suggestions are made for future areas of development in ODR after a brief exploration of key challenges that influence the design of such systems.

See here for related work that explores the same frontiers of ODR.

Content without wires

Put simply, we’re on the cusp of a dramatic transformation that will extend far beyond the mere ability to download e-mail, photos, and webpages more quickly. Plentiful wireless bandwidth, coupled with more sophisticated mobile devices, will usher in a new generation of wireless tools and services.

This excerpt, from a Business 2.0 article featured on CNN that I read today, captures succintly the potential of very large footprint web and internet access technologies radically influencing the way we interact, contribute to and distribute content in what can be called the new information societies. Sucn sentient and ubiquitous coverage of web access technologies will facilitate content production and dissemination that no longer relies on a central hub for production. In a way, such content will be comparatively raw and unedited – on the other hand, centralised media houses will not be able to compete with the plethora of information produced by communities for their local community.

For peace, this means that grassroots communities will (finally) have the means through which their voices can be promoted, at little or no cost (certainly less than the combined cost of PC ownership and PC based wired internet access) through mobile telephony frameworks or WiMax & PDA combinations to a larger audience. In reality, this means that technologies already development for news and journalism using mobile video can be used for human rights monitoring, bringing to light local government corruption, capture government officials who take bribes, help in alternative dispute resolution with regards to post-conflict land issues by giving mediators a better idea of the contested territory through video & photos, helping humanitarian aid work and strengthening community participation in peacebuilding frameworks.

The Business 2.0 article has some interesting links to existing technologies that are pushing the barriers of wireless access and related technologies. In particular, the very same technology used in the location based service provider Bones in Motion featured in the article can be used to animated some of the ideas I’ve written about here.

If technologies are being developed to order food through mobiles, surely it’s time to also see how our new wireless world can contribute to peacebuilding? For instance, news I read today on that Sri Lanka is to offer frequencies for high-speed mobile services is interesting in light of the peacebuilding content, now designed for the web (podcasts, manuals, streaming videos, RSS updates, blogs etc), that can be tailored to fit and be made accessible through mobile devices.

As I note in Mobile phones for greater access : But where is the content for peacebuilding?:

My fear is that while ideas that seek to promote ICT to the grassroots in Sri Lanka oftentimes take the form of technology provision (through hardware and software solutions), there is little interest in the creation of content that specifically makes use of the broad spectrum of access technologies (from PC’s in Gnanasela’s to mobiles and PDAs) in support of existing peacebuilding initiatives conducted by civil society, NGOs and the government.

The success of any technology, however advanced, lies in its ability to facilitate the creation, dissemination and consumption of content that is relevant to users. 3G is all well and good, but if content is only limited to the re-broadcast of tired TV & traditional electronic media, polyphonic ring-tones and juvenile mobile videos, it would be a singular waste of technology that has the potential to revolutionise the way grassroots communities interact with polity and society in Sri Lanka.

Richard Susskind and the future of ODR

From a post on Online Guide to Mediation comes news of Richard Susskind’s 2006 lecture at the Society for Computers and Law.

Slide 8 of his presentation flags technology developments that Susskind feels are important to take note of, inter alia:

• Exponential growth of technology
• Community and collaboration
• Multi-media
• Disruptive technologies

It’s both heartening and deeply humbling to see that one of the world’s leading minds agreeing on the same issues and technologies that I’ve flagged earlier as vitally important to the development of Online Dispute Resolution in the coming years. See The future of Online Dispute Resolution and other articles on the current state and evolution of ODR.