[wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?

[Ramon Roca]

In the line on the discussion. I can share many of thoughts dropped here.

The Catalonia example:
The regional government has done a few of those PoC, "successful but 
closed", but at the announcement time with lots of media coverage/hyped 
expectations.
Now seems that something learned, at least the half: They don't do hype 
any more, at least with less volume, but no clear that they really 
learned the other half and want to change to a more co-operative 
approach with other actors. Currently there are only plans for re-edit 
in the same way, just expecting that by having better SLA's and with the 
help of improved technology that will solve the problems. And note that 
happens in a context where there are a strong community-based groups 
which success stories of relationships with local companies and local 
governments and municipalities.

Personally I hate some comparatives, specially when they are about 
diferent things, but let me do an exception to illustrate what happened 
in the last 2/3 years at Catalonia:

Projecte BAR sponsored by the Regional Government:

    * Planed investments at the beginning of about 10 million €. Now
      extended to 10 million more, totalizing 20 million euros.
    * Method: Public bid open to private companies. Government retains
      infrastructure ownership, but gives it away to the selected
      company for a certain number of years.
    * The selected companies works as a regular ISP (no network neutrality).
    * Achieved about 500 connected homes. Almost all of them in rural
      but aggregated population areas.
    * Source:
      http://www.localret.es/jornades/materials/czr/presentacio.pdf
      (their own presentation given at the end of May 2006).

guifi.net:

    * Investments done by the community participants, difficult to
      calculate, but not more than 200K €
          o Individuals
          o Local companies seeking for self-services over the network
          o Local governments, municipalities
    * Method: Co-operative, Wireless Commons style network, no single
      ownership.
    * Achieved about 800 hundred users, both in small to mid-size urban
      areas and rural areas, including dispersed farms. To emphasize at
      the region of Osona, were a single all wifi network covers about
      400 to 600 square kilometers, which is about several times the
      size of the city of Barcelona (you can see it on the maps here):
      http://maps.guifi.net/world.phtml?REGION_ID=2444)
    * Network is neutral. Internet is picked at the regular ISP where
      DSL is available and spreaded over the wifi network both by public
      municipalities or individuals.
    * Source: guifi.net, http://guifi.net/ca/catalunya

Is not in my aim to criticize public initiatives or government 
actuations. Like someone said, nothing is black and white. But yes to 
underline that co-operative approaches with all the actors can guarantee 
better results, and sometimes the idea of acting unilateral just 
increases the chances of failure. That's my IMHO conclusion.

Cheers,
Ramon.







En/na vvcrishna at radiophony.com ha escrit:
> At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the first
> step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which still
> slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time and yes,
> another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
> internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful 'proofs of
> concept'.
>
> I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear the onus
> for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and white, but
> surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as basic
> communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite enjoying a
> mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium itself as a
> revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?
>
> Quoting john wilson <johnresearch at hotmail.com>:
>
>   
>> Balaji and all,
>>
>> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements of 
>> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from government 
>> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such political 
>> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
>>
>> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
>>
>> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. Government and 
>> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political 
>> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail due to 
>> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The pendulum 
>> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of failure. 
>> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and market 
>> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local, "first-mile" 
>> community network projects is changed.
>>
>> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy in a 
>> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access", 
>> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of 
>> community projects.
>>
>> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net had 
>> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a 
>> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", "co-operative" 
>> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of 
>> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update since 
>> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the 
>> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed to 
>> maintain a democratic community management and  economic sustainability. Has
>>
>> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced recently? 
>> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
>>
>> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community wireless 
>> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative 
>> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno presented to
>>
>> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his presentation here
>>
>> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. The 
>> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India 
>> situation"?
>>
>> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", where 
>> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re issues of 
>> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
>>
>> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given to 
>> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention to the
>>
>> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a real 
>> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to repeat 
>> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake, your 
>> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of business.
>>
>> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder whether it 
>> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy re 
>> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded advocacy 
>> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of interest, 
>> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland 
>> convention (with World Bank funding)?
>>
>> Where's the politics?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>     
>>> From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 at yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>>> Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>>> To: wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Arun
>>>
>>> The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue.
>>>
>>> On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is the
>>> Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large corporates and
>>> NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do not even
>>> have intention to do something substantive.
>>>
>>> Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
>>> partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse
>>> only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
>>>
>>> The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on the
>>> government for evertything?
>>>
>>> Balaji
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arun Mehta wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures,
>>>> wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be interested
>>>> in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
>>>>
>>>> The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we
>>>> have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government is
>>>> indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years
>>>> after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything
>>>> on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved
>>>> wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe
>>>> time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than I
>>>> expected.
>>>>
>>>> As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a
>>>> network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words,
>>>> viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead
>>>> of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
>>>> business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People
>>>> surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do
>>>> with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to use
>>>> a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
>>>>
>>>> The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time,
>>>> to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
>>>> condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
>>>> themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around
>>>> the world so ably demonstrate.
>>>> Arun
>>>>
>>>> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
>>>> Rural connect: The cooperative way
>>>> MOHAN MISHRA
>>>>
>>>> On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a law
>>>> and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by
>>>> Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
>>>> farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are
>>>> only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight of
>>>> agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural disparities.
>>>>
>>>> To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
>>>> teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth,
>>>> rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas.
>>>> The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban
>>>> volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected.
>>>>
>>>> Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal, connect-ing
>>>> the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing interest
>>>> from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
>>>> problems of rural India using Information and Communication Technology
>>>> (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements,
>>>> substantive results have been far and few.
>>>>
>>>> One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
>>>> technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been
>>>> around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
>>>> Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
>>>>
>>>> These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages.
>>>> Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
>>>> overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
>>>> sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling
>>>> out rural kiosks.
>>>>
>>>> No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS
>>>> Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner:
>>>> "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is
>>>> more a question of social sustainability."
>>>>
>>>> Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
>>>> computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that
>>>> solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much
>>>> to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
>>>>
>>>> It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances
>>>> in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
>>>> conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't
>>>> been substantive work on field.
>>>>
>>>>  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way forward
>>>> may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
>>>> technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
>>>> transformation is Amul.
>>>>
>>>> Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western
>>>> world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul
>>>> CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the
>>>> food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
>>>>
>>>> Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural people,
>>>> fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the
>>>> grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
>>>> cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more
>>>> important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are
>>>> embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
>>>> co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for
>>>> reducing disparities.
>>>>
>>>> Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing
>>>> its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common
>>>> Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
>>>> vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver positive
>>>> re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
>>>>
>>>> The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort
>>>> and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and the
>>>> co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
>>>> contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things
>>>> beyond limited CSR activities.
>>>>
>>>> The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural
>>>> India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they need
>>>> to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to
>>>> sustain-able rural transformation.
>>>>
>>>>