The global appetite for community-centric LOANs while highly evident in both developed and emerging economies is in reality, only just beginning.  The form and impact of LOANS is likely to emerge, develop and mature over time as they become more widely deployed.  

Although, as yet, there is no clear cut and quantifiable evidence of substantial socio-economic benefit of a LOAN approach to access infrastructure, that does not mean that, given time, such evidence will not be forthcoming if the LOAN approach is indeed, as many already argue, a more appropriate concept or principle for the deployment of the digital technologies of ‘abundance’ than that being pursued by the conventional telecom or cable industries.  It is therefore vital that nothing is done in the short term to inhibit the experimentation with LOAN strategies by those communities and cities that have a conviction or appetite to do so.  Such free experimentation is an essential pre-requisite to the generation in the months and years ahead of solid and quantifiable economic and social data that will either confirm or deny their value.

In the meantime, public policy makers and regulators might be well advised to follow the precept of Chairman Mao, “Let a thousand flowers bloom”.  It is too early to cast blueprints or seek to craft regulatory templates with respect to LOANs.  As former FCC Chairman Michael Powell commented towards the end of his tenure [ii]

“…. And right now we are in this terrible position in which companies’ regulatory treatment is more a function of whence they came than what they are currently doing.  And this arbitrariness is cracking up, in my opinion,  the legal regime and the courage we need is to throw it out – it is to bring it down and re-level the field to understand what a ‘bit-is-a-bit’ really mean.  First of all desire to drive infrastructures in that way -  business models in that way, and then force the law to open up horizontally as well and  stop having government so involved.”
 

By permitting innovation and experimentation with regard to pocket and ad-hoc deployment of LOANs, hard social and economic evidence of  their benefit will begin to emerge.  It is in the light, or absence, of this evidence that public policy should be framed for the longer term in due course.  Today, there may well be loud, articulate and united voices already pleading, either explicitly or implicitly, that the further emergence of LOANs in whatever situation will, at best, not be beneficial to end users and at worst may damage the telecoms industry on which they currently rely.  As yet it is far too early to say whether these arguments should be heeded and allowed to influence public policy, despite the lack of clarity and uniformity that inevitably results for the time being.  

As Tomas Krag, the experienced and respected advocate and trainer in wireless networking in the developing world says: [iii]
 

“If there is one thing I have learnt while conducting trainings around the world, it is that no two situations are alike, and hence without understanding the local context decisions like these cannot be made …while you may have a point that building anything less than a full broadband network, is in fact perpetuating the digital divide, there is little point in pretending that we have either the funding, the skills or the political will to bring everyone onto a full featured broadband network.   And to put it bluntly for people who currently have no telecom infrastructure [something less than a full broadband network] is definitely a step in the right direction.”

 
Indeed, it would appear from the evidence of the study, that looking to the developed nations where LOAN deployment is facing strong opposition from both the telecommunications and cable sectors, it is NOT likely to provide future public policy templates for the developing world.  Rather, by innovative LOAN experimentation and innovation and by careful analysis of the positive or negative impact of such LOAN strategies, the developing world has the potential to ‘leap-frog’ the more mature telco markets of the developed world.  The latter’s fashion for public policy formulation by ‘consultation’ is seen by many as a severe ‘brake’ on the speed with which ‘disruptive technologies’ are allowed to bring end-user market benefit.   The political mantra may be, “we are neutral and don’t pick winners” … but by inhibiting too early the emergence of innovative new business models such as that implied by a LOAN strategy could be regarded as using public policy and regulation to force them to be potential losers.
 

Although not speaking explicitly about LOANs, Heizo Takenaka, the Japanese Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications said he saw:[iv]
 

“… media and telecoms as the next area in which Japanese industry needs to change to regain its edge and allow the public to reap the full benefit of technological advances….  TV Culture has a larger presence in Japan than in the US and Japan is a leader in telecoms.  So, the public is asking … why certain things [that take advantage of those advantages] cannot be done”
 

This demand from end users of their political leaders to allow them to derive maximum value and benefit from technology is undoubtedly a major driver behind the LOAN movement.  It should be allowed to take its course in order to determine whether or not it delivers those end user benefits.

<- previous chapter | next chapter ->
 

REFERENCES