Looking at different kinds of local networking sites makes it easier to discuss infrastructure. I would say that the Fredericton project that I have begun describing fits better into the parameters of the report. But we all know what doesn’t fit is often the most interesting — and important!

I don’t buy that point.

even if the phone system was built on the back of the telegraph system, that doesn’t make it virtual. It has taken over the original infrastructure’s place and has become infrastructure in it’s own right.

Regarding second order large technical infrastructures or virtual infrastructures, these are terms used in the report. I like the second order name more than the former for similar reasons that you point out. I think what is important to glean from this is the idea that email, www and cellular telephony are built upon and depend on formerly established infrastructures. There is no email without the Internet as there is no www without the Internet and there are no cell phones without towers, electricity and the like. They are not independent infrastructures as defined in this report they are what i would call extensions. Therefore, according to their definitions, i believe this is also true for community wireless initiatives, i think they are more second order infrastructures or localized large technological systems but perhaps, again according to the definitions provided in this report, not yet fully matured or established infrastructures.

I added another bit about my trepidations about two tiered internet, i think people will simply say that it is a private good and not a public good therefore two tiered makes sense as two tiered is becoming normalized.

1) consolidation. I was using a different word but that one is neat. Hats off to Andrew Clement for bringing up this issue in his talk at the net neutrality discussion. He specifically mentioned that aspect of the NN issue - that it was important to address now because of norms (both attitude and technology) are in the process of being hardened / made more permanent / consolidated.

2) I’m not sure what you’re saying about “second order / virtual systems” and I think it’s really important to be clear about this. Virtual is a heavy word with a lot of meanings, and I would be very cautious in applying it to infrastructure. Make sure that you really mean it and are ready for the long-term consequences of it. Personally, I don’t like the term and I would argue that it doesn’t apply to this. And secondly, I think it will have the effect of people treating “virtual infrastructures” less seriously. Much harder to make someone see the consolidation of a virtual system as being a crucial issue.

good post.