Meaningful connectivity: What creates a successful community network?

This article was originally published by Intermedia.

Community-centred connectivity (CCC) initiatives, and more specifically, the term ‘community network’ has become a catch-all description for a wide range of digital communication networks operated at the community level that have emerged over recent years. (For a broader understanding of the emergence of CCC initiatives, see part 1 of this article in last quarter’s Intermedia.) The organisational form, scale and priorities of these initiatives can vary substantially. Just as for any other business sector with different ownership and governance models, community-based operators organise themselves according to different values, goals, cultures and contexts. Shaped by local conditions, community networks often require pragmatic approaches, involving whatever is feasible, acceptable and simple to manage without losing autonomy.  Community-centred connectivity efforts in the last ten years can be seen as initiatives created to meet a set of community needs, harnessed by their own values and principles in a way that the technology project helps achieve.

An extensive consultation process with about 350 community networks in 2023 and 2024 identified a diversity of initiatives in the global south and 12 principles that most of these projects were found to adhere to. [1] These can be viewed as the foundational principles which, when woven together, result in meaningful connectivity. They are summarised in table 1 below.

An online survey of CCC networks conducted by APC [2] reported 149 independent initiatives with 342 sites in 32 countries. It was found that 59 per cent of projects provide in-premises connectivity via Wi-Fi hotspots while 21 per cent provide broadband via public Wi-Fi. Only 5 per cent of initiatives provide connectivity through a 2G, 3G or 4G wireless network. [3] In 71 per cent of cases, capacity building training was put in place in the communities, 59 per cent provide personal support, 17 per cent connect schools and 10 per cent offer device charging. 15 per cent have public access facilities. Finally, 3 per cent operate environmental sensors. In all, the survey shows that an average score of adherence to the principles outlined above is 9.2/10.

The following table describes the main features of a selection of existing community networks. [4]

Summary of the main challenges to CCC sustainability and growth

Spectrum access                  

The scarcity of mobile community networks is mainly a reflection of the policy and regulatory constraints faced by these initiatives to establish small scale services based on GSM/LTE technologies. The key barrier for community networks is that access to the radio spectrum bands used for mobile networks (IMT) is restricted and, where spectrum is abundant, wrong assumptions and decisions about its scarcity and the use of auctions are made. Often the GSM bands are already allocated for long periods of time to existing operators and there is no ‘use it or share it’ provision for their use by third parties in rural areas that are unoccupied by the spectrum licensees. Similarly, the newer LTE bands are either not yet assigned for mobile applications (because they’re used by TV broadcasters) or only available at costs that are unaffordable for small scale networks. Most national policymakers and regulators are as yet unaware of the possibilities for operating these types of mobile networks locally and have not updated their spectrum management and mobile licensing policies accordingly. Mexico was a pioneer in changing such policies in 2013. Lawmakers well understood that portions of IMT spectrum bands for non-commercial purposes could be locally allocated in rural and remote areas for community networks on a not-for-profit basis in order to promote digital access and narrow the digital divide. Spectrum fees were waived after Supreme Court ruling AR 603/2019 mandated an affirmative action for indigenous community networks as an essential condition for equality. [7]

Licensing

The lack of a conducive regulatory environment in most developing countries is a key constraint on CCC projects. Although a few countries, such as Mexico, Argentina, Uganda and Kenya, have adopted a simplified licensing framework which includes provision for community operators, in general licence fees and the reporting requirements of the licence are too onerous for small networks.

Backhaul on a wholesale or otherwise affordable deal

The cost of backhaul/upstream capacity is usually the largest single cost item in operating a CCC network. Its cost often limits the number of people who can use the network because the high costs of capacity will be recovered through higher fees charged to the end users. To save costs, the amount of upstream capacity purchased is often limited, resulting in demand exceeding supply, which creates congestion and poor performance.

Not only are the costs of backhaul capacity the main cost element for community networks but, due to the lack of middle-mile infrastructure, the set-up costs for obtaining and distributing the capacity can also be the largest initial cost in deploying the network. [8] Multiple high towers may be needed to distribute the capacity to the community network and/or to support the long-distance wireless links to reach the points of presence (PoPs) of the upstream capacity provider.

The cost of backhaul/upstream capacity is usually the largest single cost item in operating a CCC network

The substantial cost of tower infrastructure may also be due to lack of access to the existing towers of commercial operators. While infrastructure-sharing regulations are becoming more common for towers, the fees charged by the operators are often unregulated. This makes them prohibitively expensive to use, necessitating the construction of towers by communities themselves.

In Uganda, for example, the cost of BOSCO’s 25 to 30 metre-high towers is about USD 9,000 to USD 10,000. BOSCO operates 14 towers and one of them is as high as 80 metres. Transport costs, installation and lightning protection can all add to these costs.

In some cases, satellite links may be a more cost-effective alternative to high towers or multi-hop, long-distance links. However the bandwidth available is likely to be more limited, there are latency issues and operating costs are usually much higher than terrestrial links for the equivalent amount of capacity. Satellite fees may also be based on data transfer volumes, which makes for unpredictable costs especially when servicing internet traffic.

A further challenge created by the high cost of upstream capacity is the consequent lack of diversity in upstream links which can make community networks less reliable. Without backup links in place, ideally from at least two different providers using two different physical paths, the network is vulnerable to outages caused by equipment failure or other problems along the route to the backbones. Although people in the global south may be more accustomed to unreliable basic infrastructure and services, network interruptions are still likely to have a strong negative effect on the value placed on the network and thus on its level of use and ultimately on its sustainability.

Access to universal service funds and other financing mechanisms

We have pointed out above that there is a deficit in the public financing needed to close the digital divide at international and national levels. Different models have been put in place with limited or temporary results. [9]  Communities determined to launch their connectivity project fundraise internally or seek grants from the international community, civil society organisations, the technical community, equipment donors and others. Very few national, state or local government administrations finance capital expenditure, but there are several exceptions such as, up to 2023, Argentina.  When administrations loosen the stifling frameworks around spectrum access, facilitate the shared use of passive infrastructure, enable open access to backbone networks and create demand-stimulation programmes they unlock the value previously trapped. [10]

There is a growing need to raise awareness among the financial community, especially impact investors and social justice oriented investment funds, of the importance of financing digital equity. Two important ambassadors of this recent effort  are Connectivity Capital and Connect Humanity which invest in broadband projects to connect underserved communities. [11] They provide affordable, flexible capital to community-centric internet service providers (ISPs) best placed to connect low-income and rural areas left behind by the market. Identifying and promoting similar organisations in the global south and working on reducing risks or perception of high-risk investment is important to match funders with CCC initiatives in each country. In the context of an increasing urgency to shift from a single bottom line paradigm to a triple bottom line that also addresses environmental and social equity, a window is opening for local connectivity efforts to access debt and even equity at a later stage of maturity.  It would be valuable if the IIC, a renowned convener of digital ecosystem stakeholders, brought together different investment funds, social impact investment organisations, fintech players, philanthropy foundations and financial education organisations from around the world to discuss a new vision of financing digital equity at the community level.

Open data

Assessing connectivity needs requires granular, accurate and open data at a local level so that decisions can be evidence-based. The necessary information includes data on coverage, backhaul, backbone networks, passive infrastructure, local schools, clinics and government facilities, demography, geography, and the nearest PoP. Technology tools to verify actual occupation of spectrum bands and frequencies in every community is also key to an efficient and inclusive spectrum management strategy. Although we have far better information now than we did two decades ago, there are many blind spots in less developed countries, or data is not open to the public under a dubious argument of national security.

Yet there are good practices of openness. Brazil’s regulator, Anatel, operates an open data portal where infrastructure providers can be located at the municipal level (but not down to  locality). [12] Mexico´s IFT publishes data on mobile services coverage in indigenous communities. [13]

Energy              

Access to electrical power for communication devices can be a major set-up or operating cost for community networks and their users. An unstable electricity supply, and more often its complete absence in many areas, increases the cost of network deployment and use by requiring energy generating equipment. Where there is no grid power, a complete solar energy supply can be installed.

Human resources

The availability of technical skills to set up and maintain communication networks in the remote, low-income settings that are common in forced displacement contexts can be a substantial challenge in establishing and maintaining a community network. Although perhaps not as serious, the availability of adequate management and accounting skills is also likely to be scarce in these environments. Technicians are a rare resource, especially in rural areas, and they often leave for greener pastures after having acquired technical skills.

Regulation and policymaking from a gender perspective

Women and gender diverse persons face different challenges in accessing and using ICT from those of men. When measuring and qualitatively assessing the digital divide, a gender lens must be used to make visible and understand such differences. It is essential that women and vulnerable minorities are listened to before making decisions on their behalf. To achieve this, decision makers in the public and private sectors should focus more on diversity and inclusion. Underrepresentation of women and minority groups has a negative impact on policies, as structural discrimination is overlooked.

In  some rural communities major barriers to ICT autonomy include a patriarchal culture, social norms, gender violence or poverty and lack of access to education for girls and women. [14] The unbalanced distribution of duties of family care make it almost impossible for rural women to engage in capacity building programmes without childcare support and travelling long distances to attend a public internet hotspot may be difficult given intense daily routines and norms. Designing digital access, digital inclusion policies (not to mention technologies and content) and public budgets with a gender mainstreaming methodology is a good practice that increases the odds of a successful intervention towards gender equality in the digital ecosystem. Few countries have explicitly embedded a gender perspective strategy or policy in their digital inclusion or broadband plans. But there are a few good examples of gendered strategies from countries such as Pakistan, [15] in guidelines and handbooks from civil society groups such as APC [16] and at the community level as well. (Portal Sem Porteiras,[17] noted in table 2, is one such example). Guidelines and gender digital gap indicators from the OECD [18] and in the ITU Handbook [19] are important tools for expediting digital gender equality and eradicating technology-facilitated violence against women and gender diverse people.

Final reflections

Technology innovation, the creativity and digital aspirations of communities and the growing claims for equality and social and environmental justice have moved forward much faster than the policy and regulatory arenas in some countries. These are holding back sustainable development at the community level, especially in the global South, but also in the rural North. The risks of an unfair and unsustainable digital society and economy were discussed this year at the Summit of the Future and the Global Digital Compact at the United Nations. The number one objective of this new digital social pact is to close all digital divides. To achieve this, commitments must be made to develop innovative and blended financing mechanisms and to invest in the deployment of resilient digital infrastructure, including local networks, to provide safe and secure network coverage to all areas, including rural, remote and ‘hard-to-reach’ ones. [20] This time we must not fail. The opportunity cost of a digitally divided world could be too high to afford.

The first part of this article was published in the October issue of Intermedia.

Michael Jensen is technology adoption coordinator in the Local Networks (LocNet) initiative, a collective effort led by APC and Rhizomatica in partnership with grassroots communities and support organisations in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Adriana Labardini is policy coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean for the Local Networks (LocNet) initiative. She is an IIC member and director, and a former commissioner at the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT).

[1] The consultations were carried out by the Association of Progressive Communications and Rhizomatica through their Local Networks initiative (LocNet). The initiative launched in 2017 with the support of the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC) and from 2020 on it has received the support of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. In addition, a wide range of global and local partners have provided financial support for the initiative, including ISOC, WACC, the 48% Foundation and Project Hello World. LocNet is a key APC programme with about 20 staff and is part of a multi-year, multi-donor strategy aiming to address human capacity and sustainability challenges, and the policy and regulatory obstacles that limit the growth of CCC projects. LocNet houses a learning repository including podcasts with stories of community projects, manuals, mentorship guides, policy briefs, a database of regulation around the world, a study of financial mechanisms for local operators and submissions to the ITU, ATU and national regulators. See bit.ly/4fIL57J

[2] Association of Progressive Communications study, due for publication in early 2025.

[3] Deploying a wireless community network using licensed spectrum is a paramount challenge. Very few jurisdictions have a policy of affordable spectrum allocation of IMT sub bands, for non-commercial or not-for-profit use on a local basis – whether through spectrum sharing or on a primary basis for rural and remote areas and those out of auction. A policy of ‘use it or share it’ for licensed spectrum that remains unused in rural or remote areas would be transformative for unconnected communities.

[4] Details on many more can be found on the Local Network website. See bit.ly/4exvpD8 and bit.ly/4fIL57J

[5] ‘Point of presence’ for connecting to fibre internet.

[6] Base transceiver station.

[7] See bit.ly/49f808s

[8] Unless government investment, or investment by wholesale operators, has resulted in more extensive capillarity of fibre infrastructure down to the community level, PoPs are only located in urban or relatively populous rural areas.

[9] Emanating from the first WSIS in 2005 there was a decision to create a digital solidarity fund supported by developing countries, but this was resisted by donor countries who ended up making insignificant contributions (USD 6.4 million in four years). With such limited support the fund was terminated, although there was an expectation that the World Bank Digital Development Partnership (DDP) would play this role. The DDP only managed to raise USD 50 million directly but also leveraged around USD 10 billion in lending and investment operations. Multilateral development banks only invested around one per cent of their investment commitments in low- and middle-income countries in ICT projects from 2012 to 2016 which amounts only to 5 billion USD. Other recent global efforts to raise capital for communications infrastructure are the ITU and UN’s Partner2Connect and the UNICEF-ITU Giga initiative which aim to mobilise funding for public and school connectivity respectively. International cooperation agencies from Europe, the G-7, China, the United States and the World Bank, have also devoted many billions in loans and equity to finance top-down digital infrastructures. However, even with all these efforts, the funds that have been made available still fall far short of the ITU’s estimated USD 428 billion required to close the digital divide. As the IMF has stated, this figure will only grow as consumption of gigabit per capita of data increases.

[10] Forster J, Matranga B and Nagendra A (2022). Financing mechanisms for locally owned internet infrastructure. APC, Connect Humanity, Connectivity Capital and the Internet Society. bit.ly/3ZiB38r

[11] See bit.ly/3UNyub6

[12] See bit.ly/3CAgydO

[13] See bit.ly/3Z1EVtI

[14] The GSMA’s 2021 consumer survey identified that the top barriers to women in Pakistan using mobile internet are: difficulties reading and writing, family disapproval, that the internet is perceived not to be relevant for them and handset cost. Other factors such as safety and security concerns, lack of formal proof of identification or access to sales agents and training facilities also impact the digital gender divide. See also note 16.

[15] UNESCO/PTA Digital Gender Inclusion Strategy. bit.ly/3UOKwkA

[16] APC feminist internet. bit.ly/3USpjGG

[17] Prado D (2024). Seeding change: Community network tackles the digital divide and boosts the creation of local content. APC Talk, 25 March. bit.ly/4fO4t3f

[18] See the OECD’s Gender equality and digital transformation at bit.ly/4erYPmf and the OECD Going Digital Toolkit at bit.ly/4fm8OuD

[19] See the ITU Handbook on mainstreaming gender in digital policies at bit.ly/3O5q0bF

[20] See the UN Summit of the Future outcome documents, September 2024, at bit.ly/3CmzRHI