Place-Peer Community And Civic Bandwidth:

This article presents findings from an ethnographic case study of one Urban Community Wireless Networking (CWN) group, Wireless Toronto. A key purpose of the study was to understand who participates in them? Why? What (if at all) do CWNs have to do with “community”? Data was collected using participant observation, surveys, and in-depth interviews. Analyses relied on a conceptual framework consisting of ideas related to social capital, community networks, community informatics, and constructivist visions of technology. Findings revealed that diverse notions of community were central parts of volunteers' discourse, especially when attempting to understand their overall rationale for provisioning free (public) Wi-Fi. In particular, the article discusses how these notions of community related to ideals of “place-peer community” and “civic bandwidth”. Overall, the study argues that urban CWNs are social and civic networks of individuals whose short-term social implications are practical (i.e. local community participation) and long-term implications, symbolic-ideological (social constructions of technology and community).

Keywords: Community wireless networks, community networks, community informatics, social capital, Wi-Fi, civic engagement, constructivist visions of technology, civic bandwidth, place-peer community

Bandwidth. Beer. Fun. Free. These are all words that come to mind when I think of the group of self-professed geeks known as Wireless Toronto. On the surface, there is very little about this community wireless networking group that suggests any activity that might merit serious attention. Indeed, the emphasis of the group is social, and the underlying mission of the group is obscured by the lighthearted and casual nature of its meetings, socials, and members. Convening once a month for a brief meeting at the Centre for Social Innovation, the small group of (mostly male, mostly geeky) volunteers continues onto a nearby bar for drinks and more conversation. There they toast to victories both small and large, and strategize how to improve and increase public access to free wireless Internet. Why? Volunteers might say because it’s fun, it’s an interesting way to learn about wireless infrastructure and play with open-source software. And, in some small way, they feel that they are helping their local communities by giving people access to ICT (information communications technology) not provisioned with commercial interests.

At the heart of this explanation, there seems to be a kind of technological utopianism, reminiscent of the wildly optimistic first decade of the Internet. However, if we accept the social constructivist view of technology that sees how we talk about technology as constitutive, and recognize that discourses about technologies can shape how they are used in a given society, then examining the logic and motivation for these kinds of grassroots, bottom-up ICT initiatives, is useful for understanding how the struggle to define the use of new technologies can also be a struggle for political and social agency.

A closer look at this group of volunteers reveals a group of diverse individuals, who – while appreciating the opportunity for camaraderie based on a shared interest in wireless networking technology – are brought together by more than an interest in socializing or learning. That is, they are brought together by a shared vision of how technology could be used to connect people in and to their communities. The research project presented in this article is a collection of different kinds of inquiries about the social consequences of technology, brought together through a case study of one community wireless networking group, Wireless Toronto. Rather than focus on technical aspects of community wireless networks (CWNs), this study considered their social aspects, with particular interest in how “community” is manifest in their logic. For example, what visions of technology are expressed by the people who participate in them? Why is community important in the design and use of communication technologies?

Using ethnographic methods of research and applying inductive modes of analysis to findings, this case study examined the rhetorical and real-life notions of community found to exist in the discourses of Wireless Toronto volunteers, how this shaped their participation, and how these conceptions were related to their local community of place (Toronto). Specific research questions included, what notions of “community” and “the public interest” are held by volunteers in community wireless networking groups? How does this relate to wireless networking technology (Wi-Fi)? Findings were analyzed using concepts relating to social capital, community informatics, and technological visions (constructivist perspective).

The article begins by considering the underlying rationales of democratic communication and civic participation relevant to many CWNs. Next, it describes the specific case of Wireless Toronto, followed by an introduction of the project’s conceptual framework and methodology. A summary of the project’s key findings is presented, with particular interest in the diverse ways “community” appeared in volunteers’ discourse. Using the ideas of “place-peer community” and “civic bandwidth”, the article also considers how the Wi-Fi networks and visions for community engendered by CWNs such as Wireless Toronto overlapped in a way that catalyzed individual contributions (private investment of social capital) and can be seen as a way to foster access to material and symbolic public assets (low-cost/free Internet bandwidth and collective social capital).

In an age where global and virtual flows of people, information and culture seem to have diminished the nature and importance of the local, these community-driven ICT initiatives are important developments. This is underscored by the current trend of citizen disaffection and global decline in traditional patterns of political participation (Barney, 2004; Inglehart, 1997; Institute On Governance, 2005; Putnam, 2000). Understanding the changing landscape for democratic communication and civic participation requires careful consideration of its communication structures. Who has access to the public sphere? What mediating factors are there in the exchange of information and communication goods? Whose interests do they serve? Too often, the answer is found in the realm of private interests, where profit, not citizenship, is the ultimate goal. In short, we are witnessing a shrinking of the public sphere, which by turn, undermines our ability to create or sustain a civic and democratic society (McChesney, 2004). Yet alongside this decline in public space is the rapid spread of digital media. As Fenton (2005) asserts, a key question around new media becomes, “what is [its] role in establishing a social imaginary?” Referring to the set of values, expectations, images and symbols common to a particular social group and the corresponding society (Taylor, 2004), the social imaginary is an important way of understanding how the symbolic acts upon the actually existing; legitimizing and shaping the choices and trajectories of a given society.

These discussions around the need for democratic communication structures and the civic potential for new ICT are foundational to any nuanced understanding of the relationship between CWNs and “community”. That is, while there is no clear answer to affirm or disprove either the utopian or dystopian perspectives around the civic potential of new ICT and the Internet (Dahlgren, 2000; Dutton, 1996; Macgregor Wise, 2003; Norris, 2001; Poster, 1997), it is generally agreed that the civic potential of new ICT can be realized only through the agents who engage in its reflexive and democratic use. Moreover, it requires equitable access to the networks and bandwidth.

This ideological view of new ICT and the Internet was one that came to mainstream attention during the 1990s, with the founding of community networks (CNs) such as the National Capital Freenet (Ottawa), Cleveland Freenet, and Big Sky Telegraph (Montana). While their basic aim was to ensure affordable access to the Internet to members of their local communities, they were also built with the view that they could help citizens build organizations, provide local information, and develop bonds of civic life and conviviality (Carvin & Surman, 2006; Kavanaugh & Patterson, 1996; Schuler, 1996). Today, community wireless networking groups such as NYCwireless, Consume (London), Ile Sans Fil (Montreal) and Wireless Toronto have built technical infrastructures in much the same spirit. Unlike these first CNs, which used fixed line connections to provision individuals in private settings (i.e. homes), CWNs leverage the low cost of Wi-Fi networking technology[1], to encourage the public sharing of Internet bandwidth within a given locality.

This research project was based on a case study of the Canadian community wireless networking group, Wireless Toronto. Founded in April 2005, Wireless Toronto is an all-volunteer, not-for-profit community group dedicated to the provision of free wireless Internet in Toronto’s publicly shared places. The basis of their “no-cost” provision is twofold. First, the costs of setting up and providing free wireless Internet access are paid for by venues (i.e. the café or restaurant in which the hotspot is located pays for the cable/DSL connection and wireless router). Second, the labour and technical assistance required to install equipment and software, are provided for free by Wireless Toronto volunteers. With a network of over 30 hotspots located throughout the city of Toronto, the group’s efforts are targeted to a general population of wireless Internet users.

Modeled after CWNs such as NYCwireless and Ile Sans Fil (Montreal), Wireless Toronto was founded in April 2005, after an initial presentation and discussion convened through the local Toronto chapter of the interest-based social networking group, SocialTechBrewing. Unlike “user-groups” (i.e. the “Wi-Fi Toronto Meetup Group”) that are interested simply in the mechanics of learning and playing with the technical components of Wi-Fi networking, Wireless Toronto has an explicitly stated interest in going “beyond access”. That is, members, who come from various computing, artistic, academic, and social justice backgrounds, aim to facilitate public awareness over the social and economic benefits of non-commercial, community-based provision of wireless Internet, as well as encourage new and innovative approaches to building community with the technology.[2]

A culturally diverse metropolis, Toronto is the most populous and economically prominent city in Canada. On the global stage, Toronto is a city whose reputation as a “creative city”[3]has grown steadily over the last two decades. The city also prides itself as a leading hub for tourism, arts and business (Lorinc, 2006)[4]. Toronto has also begun to aggressively pursue ICT development, in order to position itself as one of the top cities in the world for ICT research, education, business and development.[5] The ICT sector is currently one of Toronto’s largest private sector employers, and is the 3^rd largest ICT sector in North America, behind San Francisco and New York, based on employment. At the same time, Toronto is also one of the most active regions in the Canadian nonprofit and voluntary sector, where one in four of its residents volunteers.[6]

Wireless Toronto focuses on provisioning wireless Internet connections in urban public places. Dubbed the “second wave” of community wireless networks (Shade and Powell, 2005; Townsend, 2005), Wireless Toronto and CWNs such as NYCWireless, Ile Sans Fil (ISF) and share the grassroots, not-for-profit orientation of first-wave CWNs. However, their focus is on free public access within a metropolitan, urban context using a “hotspot” model, and they are further differentiated by the primacy given to the development and deployment of captive portal suites, specifically, WiFiDog.^[7] In short, they are set apart by their emphasis on the “community”, not the “wireless” part of their goals.

In the short period that CWNs have existed, they have attracted a steady stream of academic interest. Yet much of the research looking at CWNs are inquiries and assessments that focus on technical, policy, and political economic issues (Bar & Galperin 2004; Meinrath, 2004; Powell, 2005; Sandvig, 2004; Townsend, 2001). Discussions concerned with any socio-cultural and civic implications of these groups are only beginning to take place; that is, a qualitative line of inquiry that questions sociological motivations, processes, and outcomes of this emergent community practice. For example, what understandings of community are advanced in these community wireless networking groups? To what effect? How are these notions of community relevant to developing alternative modes of democratic and civic participation? These questions underscore the usefulness of looking at Wireless Toronto as a case study, and hopefully, findings presented here will be helpful for understanding the broader group of 2^nd wave CWNs.

As Powell (2005) notes, community groups have had an important role in determining how wireless Internet networking infrastructures have been integrated into the broader political and economic cityscape. To be sure, the implications of these community wireless networking groups appear to be many. However, this research was most interested in understanding, what do these technologically-driven projects and groups have to do with “community”? This follows Mackenzie’s (2005) observation that despite the centrality of Wi-Fi based devices and networks, attention in these groups seems to move away from wireless technology itself toward the technology as a way to bring people into association with each other. That is, how the notion of “community” has been central to the naming of many of these wireless networking projects.

There is a gap in the research and literature dealing with CWNs as well as CNs, that addresses how symbolic and instrumental notions overlap in initiatives that aim to foster community. For example, the case for community networks as a way of strengthening local social capital is well-developed (Borgida, Sullivan, & Oxendine, 2002; Hampton & Wellman, 2003; Pigg & Crank, 2004). However, it remains unclear whether it is more important to focus on the potential for community within the networks (i.e. the social and technical infrastructures involved in building them), or within community network organizations (i.e. the people, relationships, and visions that are involved in creating and sustaining them)? Even less clear is whether we can say the same for CWNs. This research helps us to begin to answer these questions, by shedding light on what CWNs are, looking at what visions and understandings of community are manifest in their projects, and sensitizing us to some of their potential implications.

A central aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of what community wireless networking groups are, who participates in them, and why. The study was also interested in understanding and describing the complex interplay between new technologies and civic life. Hence, general research questions guiding the collection of data were, “who are the people involved in this wireless community networking group? And for what reasons do they participate?” Questions also included, “what notions of ‘community’ and ‘public interest’ are held by volunteers in this wireless community group? How do these logics manifest themselves in the motivations, goals and values held by individuals and the group?

In order to answer these questions, a research plan was developed to examine 2 key areas: 1) volunteer motivation and participation; 2) the relationship between the notion of community and wireless networking.

Using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection and analysis, the study employed an ethnographic, case study approach. Sources of data included:

Field research for this study was completed in Toronto between September 2005 and April 2006. Wireless Toronto was chosen as the focus of the study following my own involvement with it in April 2005. My ongoing participation in its growth, and evolution afforded me invaluable insights and access to information within the research site. Over 100 hours of participant observation, through immersion in the group’s activities (i.e. monthly meetings, special events, learning workshops), informal conversations with various volunteers, as well as in-depth interviews with individual volunteers comprised the core of the research project. A web-based survey and organization-generated data (i.e. email discussion listserv archives) and documents (i.e. meeting minutes, press releases) were additional components. In all, the multi-method, qualitative approach taken in this research can be viewed as being in the interpretive or naturalistic paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The majority of findings discussed in this article draw upon interview data. A total of 8 Wireless Toronto volunteers were interviewed, and were selected using what Patton (2002) calls “purposeful sampling”. In this method of sampling, informants were selected because they were seen to be information rich and illuminative; they were seen as useful manifestations of the phenomenon being researched. This method was appropriate since the aim of the study was to gain insight about the phenomenon, not form empirical generalizations from a sample to a population (Patton, 2002: p. 40). Interviews were open-ended, and followed a semi-structured format. They took place over a 2-month time period, and questions were iteratively adjusted in order to incorporate new elements as they emerged (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Understanding the context for this research requires an understanding of how and in what ways the social impact of ICT and the Internet have been conceptualized. In this, the present analysis adopts a constructivist approach (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) to discourses about technology (Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987).

Several theoretical perspectives were useful for conducting and analyzing my research. To understand the complex interplay between new technologies, new forms of social organization, and civic life, my research plan engaged key themes from research interested in the connection between social capital and ICT - such as how they impact social networks (Wellman et. al, 1999), foster new forms of social interaction and community (Hampton, 2001; Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2001), and are thought to support democratic life (Malina, 1999; Dahlgren, 2000). Following these insights, research questions were organized around core notions of social capital and community. In order to understand the relationship between technology, community development and social change, my research plan also delved into the literature and research on community networking (Bell et. al, 2004; Dutta-Bergman, 2005; Kavanaugh & Patterson, 1996; Venkatesh, 2003) and community informatics (Day & Schuler, 2004; Kling, 2007; Gurstein, 2000).

The connections between how the various literatures and concepts bear on the current research is visualized in Figure 1.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the core concepts of community, social capital, and visions of technology are useful for understanding and interpreting the research questions posed by this study. However, certain concepts are more directly connected to findings from a particular subset than others. For example, understanding who and what CWNs are, is closely connected to the literature and insights on community networks, while understanding questions of “why”, is closely linked to visions of technology and social capital.

In recent years, discussions of community have been overtaken by those focused on social capital. Popularized by Putnam (1995), social capital has existed as a sociological concept since it was first investigated by Tonnies (1887) and Durkheim (1893). In fact, social capital studies themselves originate from community studies, and the two are often considered synonymous.

Simply put, social capital refers to the norms and networks that facilitate collective action (Woolcock, 2001: p.70). It is a useful conceptual tool that facilitates understanding across sociological and economic perspectives, while emphasizing the importance of seeking democratic solutions to social problems. As a concept and theory, social capital has drawn much intellectual interest and research in the past two decades (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 2003; Hooghe & Stolle, 2003; Woolcock, 1998). Social capital and community are two closely related concepts. Williams (1983) defines “community” as something that indicates actual social groups, a condition of being that is felt to be more immediate than ‘society’. For sociologists, the types of relationships constitutive of any community are of key interest.

This theoretical emphasis on social relationships is crucial to understanding community. That is, recognizing that the concept of community commonly and fundamentally refers to a set of relationships that operate within specified social boundaries or geographic locales (Burt, 1989; Granovetter, 1979). However, these sociological insights should be combined with the recognition that community also has an ideological component, in that it refers to a sense of common character, identity or interests (Fernback & Thompson, 1996).

In this symbolic-ideological vein, Cohen (1985) describes how community is constructed from real-life experiences and perceptions, but is often constructed within the imaginary. Indeed, Anderson (1991) argues that even nations are socially constructed, “imagined communities”[8]. As such, one should not read “imagined” as “spurious” or “invented”; as any community that extends beyond the proximal, or face-to-face incorporates this element of imagined commonality.

Day and Murdoch (1993) further describe how people tend to blend the symbolic-personal with the geographic place when talking about “community”:

In the urban context, the study of community becomes even more complex, as the heterogeneity of individuals’ geographic, symbolic and experiential constructions of community increases. Amit (2002) observes, in the terrain of complex societies (such as those found in modern cities) that the universally salient concept of community appears to gain even more analytical prominence. Indeed, however much scholars bemoan its sloppy use and countless manifestations, community continues to provide a conceptual medium that accommodates the interrogation of the intricate interactions between modernity and sociality (Amit, 2002: p.2).

A natural starting point for conceptualizing the social implications of CWNs is research on community networks (CNs). Much of this research applies a social capital perspective in their analyses. Technological and social hybrids, community networks are social networks that link people as well as machines (Garton et. al, 1997). Typically based in particular geographical locations, electronic community networks are said to be similar in spirit and motivation to public libraries. They are run by and for the community, and often emerge out of a desire to foster equal access to ICT, and stimulate the development of social capital (Bell et. al, 2004; Schuler, 1996).

Community network organizations are responsible for creating and maintaining the networks that represent an important form of social capital, especially when considered as a community-based partnership. They provide online and offline channels through which community members can meet, interact, and exchange information and resources. Hence, these increased interactions and connections among community members should also correspond with a rise in overall social capital (Blanchard & Horan, 1998; Gore & Vidal, 1998). Dutta-Bergman’s (2005) research even suggests that communities that make access to ICT a priority are more successful than those that do not.

A key response from academics and practitioners involved in these first community networks was the formulation of a theoretical framework known as Community Informatics (CI). Along with the resource-focused perspectives from research interested in social capital, the asset-based approach of CI research and theory was useful for analyzing and understanding data collected for this study. Simply put, this perspective describes research and practice that is specifically interested in local action through ICT (Keeble & Loader, 2001). In particular, the “effective use” perspective encouraged by CI researchers bears directly on the approach exemplified by many CWN initiatives. That is, a perspective which contends that providing access to ICT is more productive when developers recognize that “effective use” requires design that emphasizes the larger contextual needs encompassing access (Clement & Shade, 2000; Gurstein, 2003). This includes factors such as access to hardware, consideration of how information accessed through the Internet is used, users’ motivation to achieve access to these infrastructures, and inclusivity and diversity of participants (Baker, 2002: p. 105).

Like the notion of social capital, visions are useful for communicating across different groups – developers, users, producers – and facilitate the alliances necessary for producing particular artifacts, uses, and systems. Knowing which visions of “what”, “where”, and “how” are held by individuals within any collaborative enterprise, is crucial to understanding its practices, goals, and outcomes. Visions are especially helpful to our current discussion, as is using a social constructivist approach (Bijker, Pinch & Hughes, 1987; Marvin, 1988; Sandvig, 2002) to try to link the activity of individuals to wider social processes.

In Sawhney’s (2001) analysis of several large-scale infrastructure network developments, he describes how metaphors were used to evoke visions of grand futures in order to facilitate movement in situations where uncertainty stymies action. That is, evoked imagery (or visions), provides impetus for forward movement. In all, we are reminded that despite the sophisticated work required of building any advanced telecommunication infrastructure, its development is always future-oriented and so always involves imagination, requiring a leap of faith that leads its participants into the “primordial marshes of human fancy, vision and gut feelings” (Sawhney, 2001: p. 47).

In the case of free/open-source software (FOSS) developers – with whom CWN group volunteers share certain characteristics - Rullani (2005) argues that being part of the community means sharing not only a production process, but also a space in which individuals are forced, through their interactions, to share their “vision of the world” with the others, in order to give meaning to the incoming challenges and problems of the community. Within the FOSS community sharing a common vision is an important element of each member’s reflexive identity, and sets parameters around who belongs, why, and how to belong. As Sandvig (2002) summarizes, “visions are more akin to fallback positions that organize thinking about the use of communication technology when no deep thinking has occurred; convenient ways to conceptualize networks through simplification.”

Ultimately, visions also express social criticism of the present by describing an idealized future. As Corn and Horrigan (1984) argue, visions of technology lever the simplifying power of metaphor in order to inform and explain the guiding principles behind the development of a given technological system. Hence, identifying and understanding which visions are shared by social groups and their members helps us to understand what role they bear upon shaping the desired results of community-based projects and developments.

Up to now, we have reviewed the research topic and context of the case study. Key concepts and research relevant to understanding the overall aim of the project were also reviewed. The following section presents key findings from the survey and interview data collected for this research project. However, findings focus primarily on the data collected from the 8 informant interviews. The section begins with a brief picture of who participates, followed by findings on why they participate. Finally, it summarizes the way “community” appeared in their discourse[9].

A basic aim of this research was to understand “who are Wireless Toronto (WT) members and volunteers[10]?”. According to survey data, the typical WT member was male, independently employed, and had an average age of 31. There was one female in the group (aside from myself). The youngest member was 20, and the oldest was 45. Looking at the age and gender of the members, we find that the population is atypical of the Canadian volunteer population, where the most active are people in their middle years (between the ages of 35 and 54) who volunteer at the highest rate. During the research period, there were approximately 30 members of Wireless Toronto, and 10 volunteers[11].

Wireless Toronto volunteers are what Peter Drucker (1989) has defined as ‘knowledge workers’, and with an average age of 31, most members also belong to what Tapscott (1998) refers to as the “Net Generation” (Net-Gen). The first generation to grow up surrounded by digital media, Tapscott characterizes Net-Geners as knowledge workers who have more transient lifestyles and tastes, and prefer to volunteer for individual causes rather than partake in traditional forms of political and civic participation.

As in any association or club, individual volunteers were motivated to join WT for a variety of reasons. Broadly speaking, motivations could be organized in terms of how they fit in volunteers’ personal interests, or in “the public interest”. For example, motivations that were deemed related to volunteers’ personal interest included social networking, professional/work-related goals, learning, and of course, provisioning access to free Wi-Fi. Reasons that were in the “public interest” featured descriptions of more altruistic goals focused on issues of access and communication, and were frequently based on ideological beliefs that valorized non-commercial, and publicly controlled information infrastructures.

Viewed in terms of social capital, volunteer participation in Wireless Toronto can be seen as something that increased their individual social capital, but also could be seen as increasing the collective social capital of their community (Figure 2).

Overall, findings were consistent with results from Shade and Powell’s (2005) survey of Ile Sans Fil members, which found that people participated for a variety of reasons, notably the convivial, social nature of the volunteer group. On the other hand, findings from this project also showed that ideological beliefs, particularly those relating to community and the public interest, were significant factors in many of the volunteers’ interest in Wireless Toronto.

This study set out to investigate the perceptions, motivations, and strategies related to “community” that were manifest in the volunteer group, Wireless Toronto. Previous sections dealt briefly with the “who” and “why” of participation; the following delves into questions relating to “what for” and “how”.

Listening to informants’ description and use of the notion of community, it became clear that the way that they sensed it was important to understanding their motivations for participating. They talked most frequently about notions of community characterized by relationships and interaction that primarily were face-to-face, and existed in “bricks and mortar” environments (in simplified terms, “real-life”)[12]: the local community of WT volunteers and their local community of place (Toronto). Less importantly, informants articulated senses of community that were connected primarily to imagined senses or visions of community. This included a broader (global) community of community wireless networking groups, as well as the community of users who existed as part of the rhetoric-based vision of place-peer community.

The strongest and most readily expressed notion of community that emerged from the data, related to the community of Wireless Toronto volunteers. While volunteers acknowledged the existence of other communities (i.e. end-users, venue-sponsors, local neighborhoods), the felt community of WT volunteers appeared to be of key importance. Indeed, a significant short-term outcome of their participation was this community of diverse individuals brought together by a blend of social and technological interests.

A sense of belonging in this volunteer community appeared to be integral to many informants’ commitment to the Wireless Toronto group and projects; that is, a community which informants understood as being part of their real-life. This was reinforced by the importance informants attached to offline versus online interactions. Indeed, most volunteers considered face-to-face socializing with others as being the most important way they established and cemented a sense of community and belonging within the group.

Indeed, meeting other Wireless Toronto volunteers in real-life was described as being crucial to creating a sense of community and trust:

Ultimately, the local community of volunteers involved interaction that took place both online and offline, but was more clearly formed by real-life, face-to-face experiences.

Another important notion of community that appeared in volunteers’ discourse connected to their local community of place, Toronto. Interview data showed that volunteers’ participation in Wireless Toronto facilitated an increased sense of belonging within, and connection to place, especially for individuals whose ties to Toronto were fewer and weaker than others.

Even for volunteers with deeper and strong ties to their city and neighborhood, the effect of their involvement with WT on their sense of Toronto increased their sense of broader community.

In all, the strongest and most immediate senses of community understood by informants were the ones described by volunteers that were understood in terms of “real-life”. These were the community of Wireless Toronto volunteers, and Toronto as a community of place. Monthly meetings, hotspot installations, and the need to strategize for different neighborhoods around the city spurred volunteers to explore and connect with a range of different people and places found in the city. .

In contrast to the real-life senses of community found in Wireless Toronto volunteers’ discourse were notions that were informed by “imaginary”[13] senses of community. One of these was the global CWN volunteer community. Comprised of like-minded individuals drawn together through their mutual interest in providing low-cost/free Wi-Fi Internet access in their communities, for most volunteers, this community was one they participated in through online interaction and socializing. Informants expressed a clear sense of belonging to a broader “community of interest” (Wilmott, 1986) where members came together through the Internet-based discussions in order to solve common problems, develop related skills, or share common practices. For example, half of the informants interviewed for the study were found to subscribe to one or more community wireless networking group mailing lists, or received RSS feeds from community wireless networking-related websites (eg. WirelessCommunity.org, ISF’s development site)

An imagined community of hotspot users also emerged as an important notion of community in volunteers’ discourse. Its significance lay in how this community was who Wireless Toronto’s efforts were supposed to benefit. That is, one of the key purposes of Wireless Toronto initiatives was to connect and encourage interaction amongst people in the local communities where hotspots were set up. Even though this was a goal “in the public interest” whose outcome was likely to surface only in the long-term, and perhaps not at all, this notion of community featured prominently in informants’ discourse. Listening to informants’ descriptions of this particular community, it was clear that there was an important connection in their minds to a broader rhetoric of community as related to their ideologically-laden goals of creating information infrastructures in the public interest.

Interview and observational data found that real-life notions of community were expressed implicitly in volunteers discourse. On the other hand, notions of community that were informed by rhetoric were often expressed more explicitly. For example, explanations of how the term “community” was meant to identify the group as being independent of private (i.e. profit-oriented, top-down) interests and non-corporate (i.e. bottom-up, informal). When asked during interviews “what's ‘community’ about Wireless Toronto?” informants gave varying responses, all of which echoed this one:

In other words, this explicit notion and use of “community as grassroots” among Wireless Toronto volunteers, could be seen as an expression of collectively held values and short-term motivations for participation.

Another important notion of community that existed in volunteers’ discourse was that of a “well-connected” local community. This notion was primarily rhetoric-based, in that it did not appear as something informed by real-life experiences or descriptions of real-life in informants’ discourse. Volunteers viewed their participation with Wireless Toronto as contributing something positive to their place-based community of Toronto. That is, providing non-commercial access to ICT, and exploring new ways for opening up “civic bandwidth” through “place-peer community” were seen as consequences of CWNs that could contribute positively to the civic health of their community. However, this notion of community was articulated with less clarity and frequency. Still, its importance becomes clearer when we connect it to goals expressed by volunteers that centred around the public interest.

The notion of a well-connected community found in volunteers’ discourse consisted of social as well as technical dimension, and it is conceptualized here through a neologism, “place-peer community”. Distinctly future-oriented, this notion could also be described as a vision of community made possible by the Wi-Fi technology and deployment of community-based “captive portal pages” in Wireless Toronto hotpots. In this way, it also relates to stated motivations to go “beyond access”.

A key technical component of this vision is WiFiDog. A development project spearheaded by the community wireless networking group Ile Sans Fil in Montreal, WiFiDog emphasizes the implementation of locally-relevant “captive portals”^[14] for each hotspot. Setting up free Wi-Fi hotspots and providing access to the Internet is seen as the first step, aimed at drawing laptop users “from their basements and home offices into public spaces. [Following that] the next step of the [WiFiDog] project is to use the network of hotspots to create a sense of local community[15]” (Lenczner, 2005).

This vision of place-peer community, as related to the implementation of WiFiDog within hotspots providing free Internet, is described by this volunteer as a unique opportunity to encourage social interaction:

As indicated by this description, this particular notion of community features proximity-based social ties that leverage the affordances of computer-mediated communication (i.e. asynchronous communication, many-to-many) while also encouraging in-depth connections with the underlying context of those relationships (i.e. the neighborhood in which the hotspot and location-based portal is accessed).

Intended to summarize the various threads of this idea, the somewhat awkward neologism place-peer community is introduced here in an effort to bring together the myriad different vectors – wireless networks, mobile wireless devices, social software, physical spaces, people- that constitute the hybrid (physical and virtual; real-life and imagined) community thought to be catalyzed when local users are given free Internet access, and presented with content via the location-specific “community portal” within a local hotspot. Positioning the word “place” before “peer” also gives primacy to the specific geographic location that different hotspots and community portals would be connected to. For example, place provides the local context of the interaction:

Meanwhile, peer denotes other people who occupy the same place, accessing the Internet through the free Wi-Fi hotspot. Different from non-users who may also (synchronously) be in the same place at the same time, or frequent (asynchronously) the same physical space regularly, they are peers by virtue of being mobile Internet users who also occupy a shared cyber-place. The socio-technical emphasis on what Wireless Toronto aimed to provision appealed to volunteers who were sensitive to the possibility that offering no-cost Wi-Fi in public spaces might engender atomization rather than interaction:

Consequently, the vision of a location-based portal page that encouraged users to access location-specific information (place), along with potential for social networking amongst fellow users (peer), was found to be a vital part of how volunteers connected the notion of community to the provision of free wireless Internet.

It is important to emphasize that the logic of the place-peer community that emerged in volunteers’ discourse was not an attempt to advocate or create virtual surrogates for local communities of place. Rather, it was an ideal that sought to catalyze and/or reinforce them. In short, it aims to extend users’ opportunities for communication within communities of place by levering the potential of mobile technology and social software to explore the possibility of encouraging (digital and physical) forms of propinquity (Korzenny, 1978; Webber, 1963). This is especially pertinent for urban environments, where new principles of technological space and the recombinant interplay between urban space, ICTs, and physical movement challenge the very idea of city and community (Borja & Castells, 1997; Graham, 2004; Mitchell, 1995). This vision of community held by the volunteers was equally rooted in the technological possibilities of social software and mobile communication as well as the imperatives of a geographically-bounded local community. In this way, it affirms the view espoused by scholars such as Fernback and Thompson (1996), who argue that although virtual community has advantages, it cannot adequately replace the community of the physical realm.

Still, the vision of place-peer community was not a central motivation for all. Asked, “how big a factor was the idea of the community portal in attracting your attention to this project, or this group?” some volunteers noted that it was an important element of the initiative that caught their attention, while others indicated that it was not a vital part of their motivation for joining. Yet as a vision, the rhetoric and imagined potential of place-peer community was something that appealed to volunteers, and existed as an important part of their symbolically constructed discourses of community.

The centrality of the word “community” in community wireless networking groups is unmistakable. Findings from the case study presented in this article showed how different notions and beliefs about community were important to why volunteers participated, and to what end. On one hand, some discourses of community were connected to visions and ideals based primarily on rhetoric. For example, the notion of a well-connected community of place (Toronto), and their vision of place-peer community. On the other hand, some discourses of community were more closely connected to informants’ real-life experiences, such as the felt community of local and global CWN volunteers. The following section discusses the interplay between these visions, motivations, and imagined/real-life senses of community. This is accomplished by delving more deeply into the notion of civic bandwidth.

Empirical analysis showed that volunteers were not directly motivated to participate in Wireless Toronto in order to “close the digital divide”, advance altruistic goals relating to access, or take advantage of opportunities for learning and professional development. However, all volunteers expressed clear ideological beliefs about the democratic potential of technology, and the civic necessity of access to ICT, and conceptualized the connection as something described here as “civic bandwidth”

This term describes a pattern that emerged in interview data, where volunteers described being motivated by a diverse range reasons related to both their own personal interests, as well as to the public interest. Yet despite these variances, volunteers communicated a clear goal (or ‘vision’) of doing something that would facilitate better access to digitally-based information and opportunities for civic communication and interaction. That is, they aimed to create and provide access to civic bandwidth and in doing so, help lay the infrastructural groundwork for a virtual commons (Rheingold, 1993; Vasuvedan et. al, 2004); in other words, “articulating the new public domains that connect physical urban spaces and the potential public sphere of the electronic networks” (Broeckmann, 2004: p. 379).

Civic bandwidth comprises both technical and social elements. As a whole, it can be thought of as a kind of conduit that enables users to access information, social networks and other resources within their community. However, users in a given community are often restricted from accessing this kind of civic connection and tapping into its potential for various reasons, one of which is cost. Initiatives that aim to lower (or eliminate) these barriers - such as community wireless networking groups (WT) – do so in several ways. As the shaded boxes in Figure 3 highlight, access to freely provisioned technical bandwidth is a first step. But technical bandwidth alone does not constitute civic bandwidth. Hence, CWNs strive to ensure that access to Internet connectivity comes with opportunities to connect to locally relevant information and social networks. This is seen to be a technical task that can be accomplished in each CWN hotspot through a required login at a location-specific community portal page (i.e. WiFiDog). Of course, realizing the potential benefits of social interaction and community-based opportunities for gaining and sharing social capital is one key component of civic bandwidth that remains an imperative of individual users.

*shaded in boxes represent those elements/pathways constituting “civic bandwidth” that CWNs aim to provide.

In all, the notion of civic bandwidth is useful for understanding the socio-technical nature of Wireless Toronto’s goals, as well as some of its key ideological underpinnings and implications. As an organizing vision, civic bandwidth was seen as a way to facilitate better access to digitally-based information and opportunities for civic communication and interaction; that is, doing something to help lay the infrastructural groundwork for a wireless “virtual commons”[16]:

In other words, communities may ultimately be about people, but healthy communities also need structures that serve their communicative and social needs. This echoes the asset-based language of the community informatics approach, which says that access to ICT is more productive when developers recognize that “effective use” (Clement & Shade, 2000; Gurstein, 2003) requires design that emphasizes the larger contextual needs encompassing access.

Alongside the vision of a futuristic, technologically-mediated place-peer community in the public interest, the notion of civic bandwidth was an important motivation for many volunteers’ initial participation. It did not describe an actual part of what the group accomplished in creating, but was a commonly held vision that described at least one aspect of each volunteer’s interest in the initiative.

Broadly speaking, the most important reasons volunteers gave for their participation related to the public interest; specifically the benefits of a well-connected community, and a desire to contribute something to the existence of more democratic and civic communication systems. Overall, these reasons were more important than those related to volunteers’ personal interest. Significantly, it was found that Wireless Toronto volunteers’ motivations related primarily to goals and visions connected to the group’s rhetoric (i.e. place-peer community, virtual commons), rather than the reality of their community of place (Toronto)or their local volunteer community.

Although their logic was imperfect, the imagined ideals and rhetoric of community were an important part of what motivated Wireless Toronto’s diverse group of volunteers to contribute their social capital toward a public good (civic bandwidth). This finding confirms what scholars such as Amit (2002), Cohen (1985), and Corn (1996) assert to be the enduring resonance of community as an organizing concept and force. By contending that a sociotechnical, community-centred vision of social life is possible, even necessary, members and volunteers of Wireless Toronto appeared to equate “community” with the “public interest”. This is not surprising, since the notion of “community” is a symbolically constructed and inherently protean term (Cohen, 1985).

The broader goal of this study was to understand some of the social impact of these kinds of groups, and to highlight the connection between the interpersonal, structural, symbolic and practical/experiential in the constitution of individual’s social imaginary and participation in these kinds of initiatives. Specifically, how is the logic and notion of community useful for understanding what these urban CWNs are, and their social impact?

To this end, the article emphasized the importance of considering how social visions of technology inform and influence how people become part of certain communities of interest. In the case of Wireless Toronto, volunteers expressed varying pragmatic and ideological reasons for participating. Yet there was also an organizing vision of a “well-connected community” that emerged in volunteers’ collective discourse. This overall vision was conceptualized here as “civic bandwidth”, which encapsulates several different socio-technical dimensions of connectedness aimed for by volunteers.

However, it is dangerous for volunteers in these kinds of groups to be satisfied with relying on rhetorical notions of how urban CWNs and civic bandwidth fulfill any real needs within a given community. As Werbin (2006) argues, there is a crucial difference between ICT initiatives that genuinely foster communal life, and those that merely imagine such impacts. In other words, there is a disjuncture between the rhetoric and reality of these initiatives. Indeed, it is crucially important to acknowledge that the real-life outcomes of these projects may never measure up to the potential and idealism of their rhetoric. Nevertheless, to dismiss their importance because of a perceived overabundance of idealism or dearth of immediately measurable outcomes, ultimately would be cynical and narrow-minded.

Clearly, the relationship between community-building and ICT is not a linear one, and requires much more than a one-dimensional understanding of how it might work. Moreover, the civic, “well-connected” communities of today’s urban places are imagined in very different ways from the civic, “well-connected” communities of previous generations. Not only are they characterized by different kinds of social ties, but they are facilitated by different kinds of communication technologies. Also, we are becoming increasingly accustomed to technologically-mediated social relationships, in addition to face-to-face social connections. This is exemplified by findings that show how informants were impelled by visions of community that involved moving towards technologically-mediated forms of place-peer community and civic bandwidth.

A collection of different kinds of inquiries about the social consequences of technology was brought together through this study of one community wireless networking group, Wireless Toronto. It found that the visions of technology as expressed by its members and volunteers were innately social, and connected to diverse notions of community based on real-life experiences and imagined ideals. While the logic of community manifest in volunteers’ discourse was not entirely coherent or consistent between individuals, it was a flexible and important construct that facilitated the collective action and contributions necessary for the deployment of the wireless network in their local community of place (Toronto). Ultimately, this article argues that the implications of these 2^nd generation CWNs go far beyond what might otherwise appear to be volunteers’ interest in “beer and bandwidth”.

The Wi-Fi networks and heightened sense of community engendered by CWNs such as Wireless Toronto catalyzed contributions (individual investment of social capital) to functionally and symbolically produce a public asset (low-cost/real bandwidth, and “civic bandwidth”). These findings encourage us to consider the evolving nature of civil society. Too often, we think of ourselves as agents only within the predetermined structures of civil society. Among researchers and policymakers, there is a tendency to think of civic participation only in terms of traditional associations, donations to registered charities, or voting in municipal elections. Ad-hoc, loosely organized groups such as Wireless Toronto pass under the radar, and the opportunity for extending their potential, is lost.

The connection between major shifts in technology and a hope for social change has always been strong (Jones, 1997). However, the promise of these expectations relies on more than any intrinsic features of new technologies, and can be realized only through the agents who engage in its reflexive and democratic use. Individuals, such as the volunteers in urban CWNs such as Wireless Toronto, who investigate the sociotechnical possibilities of place-peer community; who, with their forays in the creation and provision of civic bandwidth, remind us that it is perhaps the quixotic, rather than pragmatic elements of the social imaginary are ultimately the most transformative.

Amit, V. (2002). Realizing Community: Concepts, Social Relationships and Sentiments. New York: Routledge.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Bakardjieva, M. & Feenberg, A. (2002). “Community Technology and Democratic Rationalization.” The Information Society, 18: 181-192.

Baker, C.E. (2002). Media, markets, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bar, F. & Galperin, H. (2004). “Building the wireless Internet infrastructure: From cordless ethernet archipelagos to wireless grids.” Communication & Strategies, 54, 45-54.

Barney, D. (2004). “The democratic deficit in Canadian ICT policy and regulation”. In: Moll, M. & Shade, L. R. (Eds.), Seeking Convergence in Policy and Practice. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Bell, D., Loader, B.D., Pleace, N. & Schuler, D. (2004). Cyberculture: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge.

Borgida, E., Sullivan, J. L., & Oxendine, A. (2002). Civic culture meets the digital divide: The role of community electronic networks. The Journal of Social Issues, 58, 125-141.

Borja, J. and M. Castells (1997). Local and global management of cities in the information age. London: Earthscan.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The forms of capital” in J. Richardson, (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Bradford, N. (2004). “Creative cities: Structured policy dialogue backgrounder.” Canadian Policy Research Networks. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.
Retrieved March 29, 2006 from http://www.cprn.ca/en/doc.cfm?doc=1081

Broeckman, A. (2004). “Public Spheres and Network Interfaces,” In S. Graham (Ed.) (2004) The Cybercities Reader. London: Routledge.

Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. (2004). “Motivations and Barriers to Volunteering”. (Highlight Report.” National Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating (NSGVP) 2000. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

Carvin, A. & Surman, M. (2006). From the ground up: Evolution of the telecentre movement. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Clement, A. & Shade, L. R. (2000) “The access rainbow: conceptualizing universal access to the information/communication infrastructure”, In M. Gurstein (Ed.) Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communication Technologies, pp. 32-51 (Hershey, PA, Idea Group Publishing).

Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social capital in the creation of human capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94, 95-120.

Dahlgren, P. (2000). The Internet and the democratization of civic culture. Political Communication, 17, 335-340.

Day, G., & Murdoch J. (1993). “Locality and community: coming to terms with place” Sociological Review 41, p. 82 – 111

Day, P. & Schuler, D. (Eds.) (2004). Community practice in the Network Society: Local action/global interaction. New York: Routledge.

Durkheim, E. (1933) The division of labor in society. (originally published 1893). New York: The Free Press.

Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2005). Access to the Internet in the context of community participation and community satisfaction. New Media & Society 7, 89-109.

Dutton, W.H. (Ed.) (1996). Information and Communication Technologies - Visions and Realities. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fine, B. (2001). Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium. New York: Routledge.

Fukuyama, F. (2003). “Social Capital and Civil Society.” In E. Ostrom, & T. K. Ahn (Eds.), Foundations of social capital. Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.

Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1999). Studying On-line Social Networks. In S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gittell, R.J. & Vidal, R. (1998). Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Graham, S. (2004) Beyond the dazzling light: Remediations of urban life. New Media and Society 6, 16-25.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78., 1360-1380.

Gurstein, M. (Ed.) (2000). Community Informatics: Enabling communities with information and communication technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Hall et. al (2003). Cornerstones of community: Highlights of the national survey of nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Statistics Canada: Small Business and Special Surveys Division, Business and Trade Statistics Field. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

Hampton, K. (2004). “Netville: Community on and offline in a wired suburb.” In S. Graham (Ed.) The Cybercities Reader. London: Routledge.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2(4), 277-311.

Hooghe, M. and D. Stolle (2003) (eds.) Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

“ICT Toronto: An information and communication technology (ICT) cluster development strategy for the Toronto region.” (2006) Report prepared by The Impact Group. City of Toronto Economic Development. Retrieved April 6, 2006 from http://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/ict_toronto_final_report.pdf

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Institute on Governance (IOG) (2005). “Roundtable on the democratic deficit.” Citizen Engagement and Consultation, Toronto. Retrieved November 27, 2005 from http://www.iog.ca/view_publication.asp?area=3&publicationItemID=215

Jones, S. (Ed.) (1997). Virtual culture: Identity & communication in cybersociety. London: Sage Publications.

Kavanaugh, A. L., & Patterson, S. J. (2002). “The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement in Blacksburg” in B. Wellman, and C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (Oxford, UK: Blackwell).

Kling, R. (2007). “What is social informatics and why does it matter?” The Information Society, 23:4, 205-220.

Korzenny, F. (1978). A Theory of Electronic Propinquity: Mediated Communication in Organizations. Communication Research, 5:1, 3-24.

Lin, N., K. Cook, & Burt, R.S. (Eds.) (2001) Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc.

Lorinc, J. (2006). The New City: How the crisis of Canada’s cities is reshaping our nation. Toronto: Penguin.

Macgregor Wise, J. (2003). “Community, affect, and the virtual: The politics of cyberspace.” In B. Kolko (2003) Virtual Publics. New York: Columbia University Press

Mackenzie, A. (2005). Untangling the unwired: Wi-Fi and the cultural inversion of infrastructure. Space and Culture, 8(3), 269-285.

Malina, A. (1999). "Perspectives on citizen democratisation and alienation in the Virtual public sphere." in B.N. Hague and B.D. Loader (Eds.) Digital democracy: Discourse and decision-making in the Information Age.

Matei, S. & Ball-Rokeach, S.J. (2001). “Real and virtual social ties: Connections in the everyday lives of seven ethnic neighborhoods.” American Behavioral Scientist, 45: 3, 550-564.

McChesney, R. (2004) The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Meinrath, S. (2005) “Community wireless networking and open spectrum usage: A research agenda to support progressive policy reform of the public airwaves.” The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(2).

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Oxendine, A., Borgida, E., Sullivan, J. L., & Jackson, M. S. (2003). The importance of trust and community in developing and maintaining a community electronic network. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 671-696.

Pendakur, M. & R. Harris (Eds.) (2002). Citizenship and participation in the Information Age.

Pigg, K., & Crank, L. (2004). Building community social capital: The potential and promise of information and communications technologies. The Journal of Community Informatics, 1(1).

Powell, A. (2005). The Politics of visibility: Wireless Internet signals and control of urban space. Paper presented at Internet Research 6.0: Internet Generations. (Chicago, Illinois USA)

Poster, M. (1997) “Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the public sphere”, in D. Porter (Ed.) Internet Culture. London: Routledge.

Putnam, R. (1995). "Bowling alone: America's declining social capital.". Journal of Democracy 6, 65-78.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the electronicfrontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Sandvig, C. (2004). “An initial assessment of cooperative action in Wi-Fi networking.”

Sawhney, H. (2001). “Dynamics of infrastructure development: The role of metaphors, political will, and sunk investment.” Media, Culture, and Society, 23(1): 33-51.

Scott, J. & Johnson, T. (2005). “Bowling alone but online together.” Journal of the Community Development Society, 36.

Statistics Canada (2002). “2001 Census of Canada: Highlights from the 2001 census of population.” Published March 12, 2002. (Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada). Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://geodepot.statcan.ca/Diss/Highlights/Page1/Page1_e.cfm

Stolle, D. (2003). “The Sources of Social Capital.” In Hooghe, M. and D. Stolle (2003) (Eds.) Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Surman, M. (2000). “The economics of community networking: Case studies from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)” in Gurstein, M. (Ed.) Community Informatics: Enabling communities with information and communications technologies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

Taylor, C. (2004). Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Tonnies, F. (1957) Community and Society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. (originally published 1887) Lansing, MI: The Michigan State University Press.

Townsend A.M. (2001). “Networked Cities and the Global Structure of the Internet.” American Behavioral Scientist. 44, 1698-1717.

Venkatesh, M. (2003). The community network lifecycle: A framework for research and action. The Information Society 19.

Webber, M. (1964) “The Urban Place and the Non-Place Urban Realm” from Explorations Into Urban Structures.

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L. Gulia, M. & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). “Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community,” Annual Review of Sociology 22, 213-238.

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). “Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45.

Werbin, K. (2006). “Where is the ‘community’ in ‘community-networking initiatives’?

Stories from the ‘third-spaces’ of ‘Connecting Canadians’”. Toronto: Paper Presented for CRACIN Integrative Framework Panel, Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (CRACIN) Workshop, March 2006.

Wilmott, P. (1986). Social Networks, Informal Care and Public Policy. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.

Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2, 11–17.

Woolcock, M. & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer 15(2).

[1] Wi-Fi networking technology allows any device equipped with a wireless networking card/adaptor to connect to the Internet, using radio waves. A router is used to receive information from the Internet, and sends it to the device’s wireless adapter. The device (i.e. laptop) can send information back to the Internet through the same process.

[2] “What is Wireless Toronto?” www.wirelesstoronto.ca

[3] Following Florida’s (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class, Bradford (2004) defines creative cities as “dynamic locales of experimentation and innovation, where new ideas flourish and people from all walks of life come together to make their communities better places to live, work and play.”

[4] In 2003, Toronto launched a series of a public investments in public arts institutions and philanthropy in the hundreds of millions of dollars. (Lorinc, 2006)

[5] “ICT Toronto: An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Cluster Development Strategy for the Toronto Region.” (2006) Report Prepared by The Impact Group. City of Toronto Economic Development. http://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/ict_toronto_final_report.pdf

[6] According to data from the National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (NSGVP) more than one in four (26%) people living in the Toronto CMA volunteered for a charitable or nonprofit organization. http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/factsheets/1997_ON_giving_and_volunteering_in_toronto.asp

[7] The WiFiDog project is a “complete and embeddable captive portal solution for wireless community groups or individuals who wish to open a free hotspot while still preventing abuse of their Internet connection.” http://dev.WiFiDog.org/wiki/About (Put plainly, this means that all the required software needed to manage a network (e.g. a central server and each wireless router/hotspot) is aggregated

into one “complete” kit. However, there is often ‘some assembly required’.) This particular portal suite was originally developed by volunteers at ISF. Wireless Toronto has used it since the group was founded in 2005, and NYCWireless switched to its use in 2006.

[8] That is, the affective charge of nationalism crucially draws on a conception rather than actualization of solidarity, and the idea of community is decoupled from an actual base of interaction.

[9] Discourse is derived here from Foucault: a mutually constituted cultural phenomenon involving how people do social practices and what they see through such modes of operating – the possibilities and limitations social and cultural practices and visions open and close (Foucault, 1995).

[10] Before moving into a more detailed discussion of findings, a brief comment about the use of the term “volunteer” is beneficial here. According to the National Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating (NSGVP)[10], a volunteer is someone who “performs a service without pay, on behalf of a charitable or other nonprofit organization. This includes any unpaid help provided to schools, religious organizations, sports, or community associations” (NSGVP, 2004). Participants are people who report membership or participation in a group, organization, or association (ibid.).

[11] To be clear, volunteers are meant to be understood as being different from members/participants. Here, volunteer refers to those members of Wireless Toronto who also donated their time and energy to the group, beyond listserv discussions or an occasional meeting. For example, a member who attended meetings but did not donate their time toward any organizational tasks or projects, was not (for the purposes of this study) considered a volunteer.

[12] My use of the term “real-life” (RL) is used here to echo informants’ discourse, as well as contemporary North American vernacular, where “RL” is used to differentiate between things taking place on the Internet from those taking place “not the Internet”.

[13] I use the term “imaginary” here to refer to things that featured little or none of the face-to-face interactions and “bricks and mortar” environments that characterized descriptions of “real-life”

[14] A captive portal is a dynamic firewall in which all traffic is blocked until the user logs in (or a disclaimer page is displayed and terms of service were agreed to) (Lenczner, 2005)

[15] In particular, this could be accomplished through the promotion of local content (news, listings). At a basic level, this is accomplished by specifying HTML and RSS feeds for each hotspot. Requiring a bit more work would be required to collaborate with local new media arts groups to extend functionality to accommodate text, image, audio, video, and photos. What is also implicit in this statement, is that providing free wireless Internet access, is an incentive for mobile users who might otherwise rely on private Internet connections for work and play, to choose to do so in public places instead. Attracting people into shared public spaces by eliminating one possible deterrent (i.e. “I need the Internet, but don’t want to pay for it if I leave my own home/office to work from a café”) is the first step. The novelty of this kind of community-building thus becomes the form and reason of a networking suite such as WiFiDog. Furthermore, it exemplifies the argument that “Wireless networks don't just network geographic locations, they connect individuals to one another, allowing unparalleled networking and multimedia service opportunities.” (“Building the MuniWireless Ecosystem”)

[16] The Wireless Commons Manifesto (Vasudevan et. al., 2004) champions Wi-Fi as a way of breaking down “commercial, technical, social and political barriers to the commons, and argues that a wireless commons could bridge one of the few remaining gaps in universal communication without interference from middlemen and “meddlers” (ibid). The notion of a “commons” – or, a set of community-owned resources that are accessible to any member of that community – is central to understanding underlying logic of these strategies.