159 lines
7.6 KiB
Markdown
159 lines
7.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Community Networks
|
|
date: 2025-12-27
|
|
summary: Community-owned internet infrastructure—mesh networks, cooperatives, and municipal broadband. When communities own their connectivity, they bridge the digital divide on their own terms.
|
|
draft: True
|
|
featureImageCaption: "Photo by [NASA](https://unsplash.com/@nasa) on [Unsplash](https://unsplash.com/photos/Q1p7bh3SHj8) (Unsplash License)"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
What if your internet connection belonged to your community rather than a distant corporation?
|
|
|
|
Community networks are telecommunications infrastructure built, owned, and operated by local communities. They represent a grassroots approach to connectivity where residents, cooperatives, municipalities, or nonprofits take control of their own internet access.
|
|
|
|
In a world where connectivity is essential infrastructure, community networks offer an alternative to dependence on corporations whose priorities may not align with community needs.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Why This Matters
|
|
|
|
### The Digital Divide
|
|
|
|
Approximately 21-42 million Americans lack access to broadband internet. Even where broadband exists, many cannot afford it—internet costs in the US are among the highest in developed nations.
|
|
|
|
Commercial ISPs systematically underinvest in areas deemed "unprofitable": rural communities, low-income neighborhoods, communities of color. Studies show ISPs practice digital redlining even within cities they serve.
|
|
|
|
The result: essential infrastructure distributed by profit motive rather than community need.
|
|
|
|
### Why Local Control Matters
|
|
|
|
**Accountability**: Community-owned networks answer to residents, not shareholders.
|
|
|
|
**Reinvestment**: Revenue stays local rather than flowing to distant corporate headquarters.
|
|
|
|
**Responsive service**: Local operators understand and prioritize community needs.
|
|
|
|
**Democratic governance**: Community members have voice in decisions about their infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
**Digital equity**: Community networks can prioritize underserved populations that commercial providers ignore.
|
|
|
|
**Resilience**: Local control means communities aren't dependent on corporate decisions.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## How Community Networks Work
|
|
|
|
### Mesh Networks
|
|
|
|
Decentralized networks where each node connects to multiple others. Data "hops" between nodes to reach its destination—no single point of failure.
|
|
|
|
**Advantages**: Low cost to expand, resilient to failures, community members become active participants.
|
|
|
|
### Cooperatives
|
|
|
|
Member-owned organizations where users are also owners. Democratic governance, surplus reinvested in network or returned to members.
|
|
|
|
### Municipal Broadband
|
|
|
|
City or county government builds and operates internet infrastructure. Can offer service directly or lease infrastructure to providers.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Real-World Examples
|
|
|
|
### Guifi.net (Catalonia, Spain)
|
|
|
|
One of the world's largest community networks, founded in 2004 when commercial providers ignored rural Catalonia.
|
|
|
|
**Scale**: 35,000+ active nodes across Catalonia and beyond.
|
|
|
|
**How it works**: Combines wireless links, fiber optic, and other technologies. Operates under a "commons" model—any individual or organization can connect and extend the network. Democratic, transparent governance.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Proved community networks can operate at massive scale. Recognized by European Commission as model for digital inclusion.
|
|
|
|
**Philosophy**: "The network belongs to everyone who builds it."
|
|
|
|
### NYC Mesh (New York City)
|
|
|
|
Volunteer-run community mesh network serving New York City, operating on a "pay what you can" model.
|
|
|
|
**Scale**: 1,000+ active nodes across all five boroughs, serving thousands of New Yorkers.
|
|
|
|
**How it works**: Supernodes on tall buildings connect to internet exchange points. Point-to-point wireless distributes connectivity to neighborhood hubs. Volunteers install equipment on rooftops and in apartments.
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Provided free internet to public housing residents during COVID-19. Maintained connectivity when commercial providers failed during Hurricane Sandy and the pandemic.
|
|
|
|
### Detroit Community Technology Project
|
|
|
|
Founded in 2015, focusing on digital equity and community self-determination in a city where commercial providers had systematically disinvested.
|
|
|
|
**Programs**:
|
|
- **Equitable Internet Initiative**: Trains "Digital Stewards" to build and maintain neighborhood wireless networks
|
|
- **Digital Stewards Program**: 20-week training creating community leaders
|
|
- **DiscoTech Events**: Community gatherings exploring technology and digital justice
|
|
|
|
**Impact**: Trained 100+ Digital Stewards, built networks serving thousands, created a replicable model adopted nationwide.
|
|
|
|
**Philosophy**: "We believe that communication is a fundamental human right."
|
|
|
|
### The Broader Movement
|
|
|
|
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance tracks 900+ community broadband networks in the US. Their research shows:
|
|
- Community networks consistently deliver faster speeds at lower prices
|
|
- Municipal networks outperform private ISPs on customer satisfaction
|
|
- Claims that municipal broadband "always fails" are demonstrably false
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Organizations and Resources
|
|
|
|
| Organization | Description |
|
|
|:-------------|:------------|
|
|
| [Guifi.net](https://guifi.net) | World's largest community network. Model for commons-based infrastructure. <br><small>📊 35,000+ nodes in Catalonia and beyond.</small> |
|
|
| [NYC Mesh](https://www.nycmesh.net) | Volunteer-run mesh network serving New York City. <br><small>📊 1,000+ nodes across all five boroughs.</small> |
|
|
| [Detroit Community Technology Project](https://detroitcommunitytech.org) | Digital equity organization training community technology leaders. <br><small>📊 100+ Digital Stewards trained.</small> |
|
|
| [MuniNetworks / ILSR](https://muninetworks.org) | Research and advocacy for community broadband. Tracks 900+ networks. <br><small>📊 Comprehensive database of US community networks.</small> |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Arguments for Community Ownership
|
|
|
|
### The Economic Argument
|
|
|
|
Community networks typically offer faster speeds at 20-50% lower prices. Local ownership keeps money circulating in the community. Creates local jobs and builds local technical capacity.
|
|
|
|
### The Equity Argument
|
|
|
|
Commercial ISPs created the digital divide through profit-driven decisions. Only community ownership can ensure universal, equitable access. Digital equity requires community control, not just connectivity.
|
|
|
|
### The Resilience Argument
|
|
|
|
Distributed, community-controlled networks are more resilient to disasters. Local operators respond quickly to local needs. Communities aren't dependent on corporate decisions.
|
|
|
|
### The Democracy Argument
|
|
|
|
Who controls infrastructure shapes who has power. Community ownership means community governance. Technology should serve communities, not extract from them.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Challenges
|
|
|
|
**Legal barriers**: 18+ states have laws restricting municipal broadband, largely written by incumbent ISP lobbyists.
|
|
|
|
**Financial challenges**: Significant upfront capital required. Competition from well-funded incumbents.
|
|
|
|
**Political opposition**: Incumbent ISPs lobby aggressively. Misinformation campaigns claim municipal broadband "always fails."
|
|
|
|
**Technical challenges**: Requires expertise that may not exist locally. Ongoing maintenance needs.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## The Bigger Picture
|
|
|
|
Community networks are part of a larger movement for community-owned infrastructure. They connect to platform cooperatives, community land trusts, and other solidarity economy initiatives.
|
|
|
|
The principle is consistent: essential infrastructure should be controlled by the communities that depend on it, not by corporations optimizing for shareholder returns.
|
|
|
|
The tools exist. The models are proven. Communities around the world are already doing this.
|
|
|
|
Connectivity is too important to leave to the market. Communities can—and are—building their own.
|