Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 361–375 | Cite as

The role of civil society groups in improving access to the DC-CAN



This study addresses the role that civil society groups play in improving access to a high – profile middle mile network infrastructure project in Washington D.C, namely the District of Columbia - Community Access Network (DC-CAN). The District of Columbia (D.C.) received a grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program to build and operationalize the DC-CAN. The District was one of the few cities to receive federal funding for broadband infrastructure. This paper utilizes a document/textual analysis technique to study the efforts of the three main civil society groups to empower the city’s citizens to take greater agency over local broadband infrastructure. Moreover the article provides a theoretically grounded narrative that explains the role of these groups on behalf of the DC-CAN using Kingdon’s framework of multiple policy streams as a conceptual foundation.


District of Columbia - Community Access Network (DC-CAN) broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) mesh networks multiple policy streams theory 



I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback and constructive comments on the early drafts of this paper.


  1. Anderson, G., & Whalley, J. (2015). Public library internet access in areas of deprivation: the case of Glasgow. Telematics and Informatics, 32(3), 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, M.V., and Stillman, L. (2013). Power, Communities, and Community Informatics: a meta-study. Journal of Community Informatics, 9(1), Accessed 26 January 2015.
  3. Avgerou, C. (2002). Information systems and global diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bly, A. (2014). Rural communications – What is a rural municipalities role? Journal of Community Informatics, 10(2), Accessed 15 January 2015
  5. Breitbart, J. (2012). Testimony before the committee on government operations, council of the District of Columbia regarding budget oversight: OCTO. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  6. Broadband Bridge. (2011). Interim report of the broadband bridge to the internet society D.C. chapter. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  7. Carothers, T. (1999). Civil society: think again. Accessed 4 May 2015.
  8. Cherry, B. (2000). The irony of telecommunications deregulation: Assessing the role reversal in U.S. and E.U. policy. Vogelsang, I., & Compaine, B.M. (Eds.). The internet upheaval. Cambridge: MIT Press, 355–385.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, M. (2014). Why do D.C. residents pay the highest internet costs in the country? Accessed 15 January 2015.
  10. Court, J., Mendizabal, E., Osborne, D., and Young, J. (2006). Policy engagement how civil society Can be more effective. Accessed 4 May 2015.
  11. Crawford, S., Connolly, J., Nally, M., and West, T. (2014). Community fiber in Washington, D.C., Seattle, WA, and San Francisco, CA: Developments and lessons learned. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  12. DePillis, L. (2012). Meet the new-ish boss: chief technology officer Rob Mancini. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  13. District of Columbia Government, Office of the Chief Technology Officer. (2013). Dc-can pricing guide. CAN_Pricing_Guide_v1.1.8b.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  14. District of Columbia Government, Office of the Chief Technology Officer. (2012). Dc-can services contract – community anchor institution. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  15. District of Columbia Government. (2010). Dc-can. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  16. Essia, U., & Yearoo, A. (2009). Strengthening civil society organizations/government partnership in Nigeria. International NGO Journal, 4(9), 368–374.Google Scholar
  17. Frieden, R. (2013). Identifying best practices in financing next generation networks. The Information Society., 29(4), 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuentes-Bautista, M. (2014). Rethinking localism in the broadband era: a participatory community development approach. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galperin, H. (2004). Beyond interests, ideas and technology: an institutional approach to communication and information policy. The Information Society, 20(3), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghaus-Pasha, A. (2004). The role of civil society organizations in governance. Accessed 4 May 2015.
  21. Gonzalez, L. (2012). New videos from dc-net and dc-can highlights benefits all over the city. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  22. Greeley, B. (2014). 10-year experiment in broadband investment has failed. Bloomberg Businessweek, Accessed 15 January 2015.
  23. Hasan, S. (2012). Why wireless mesh networks won’t save us from censorship. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  24. Hsieh, J. J. P., Keil, M., Holmstrom, J., & Kvasny, L. (2012). The bumpy road to universal access: an actor-network analysis of a U.S. municipal broadband internet initiative. The Information Society, 28(4), 264–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hudson, H.E. (2010). Municipal wireless broadband: lessons from san francisco and silicon Valley. Telematics and Informatics, 27(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  26. Jain, R. (2014). The Indian broadband plan: a review and implications for theory. Telecommunications Policy, 38(3), 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kesharwani, A., & Bisht, S. S. (2012). The impact of trust and perceived risk on internet banking adoption in India: an extension of technology acceptance model. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 30(4), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khorasani, G., & Zeyun, L. (2014). Implementation of technology acceptance model (tam) in business research on web based learning system. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 3(11), 112–116.Google Scholar
  29. King, J., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K., McFarlan, F., Raman, K., & Yap, C. (1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 5, 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public policies (Second ed., ). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Koebler, J. (2014). Hundreds of cities are wired with fiber—but telecom lobbying keeps it unused. Motherboard, Accessed 15 January 2015.
  32. Kovacs, A.-M. (2013). Telecommunications competition: the infrastructure-investment race, Accessed on 4 May 2015.
  33. Larose, R., Bauer, J. M., DeMaagd, K., Chew, H. E., Ma, W., & Jung, Y. (2014). Public broadband investment priorities in the United States: an analysis of the broadband technology opportunities program. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lentz, B. (2014). Building the pipeline of media and technology policy advocates: the role of “situated learning”. Journal of Information Policy, 4, 176–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liu, C., & Jayakar, K. (2012). The evolution of telecommunications policy-making: comparative analysis of China and India. Telecommunications Policy, 36(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magsamen-Conrad, K., Upadhyaya, S., Joa, C. Y., & Dowd, J. (2015). Bridging the divide: using UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McMahon, R., Hudson, H. E., & Fabian, L. (2014). Indigenous regulatory advocacy in Canada’s far north: mobilizing the first mile connectivity consortium. Journal of Information Policy, 4, 228–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2010a). Broadband USA connecting America’s communities: District of Columbia government, Accessed 4 May 2015.
  39. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2010b). National broadband map: About> > technical overview> > assembling the data, Accessed 4 May 2015.
  40. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2010c). Broadband USA connecting America’s communities: District of Columbia government, Accessed 4 May 2015.
  41. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.) (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rhea, P. (2012). Notes from broadband bridge community wireless meeting, sept. 25 2012, Accessed 15 january 2015
  44. Rhea, P., and Breitbar, J. (2011). Washington dc broadband bridge gains momentum, Accessed 15 January 2015.
  45. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed., ). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Roy, P.R. (2003), August 1. DC’s private telecommunications networks. HighBeam Research, Accessed 4 May 2015
  47. Russo, N., Morgus, R., Morris, S., & Kehl, D. (2014). The cost of connectivity, Accessed 4 May 2015.
  48. Strover, S., Waters, J., & Chapman, G. (2004). Beyond community networking and CTCs: access, development, and public policy. Telecommunications Policy, 28(7–8), 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Teppayayon, O., & Bohlin, E. (2009). Government intervention: Why is competition not sufficient for broadband deployment? Paper presented at the 37th Research Conference on Communications. Information and Internet Policy.Google Scholar
  50. Troulos, C., & Maglaris, V. (2011). Factors determining municipal broadband strategies across Europe. Telecommunications Policy, 35(9–10), 842–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.Google Scholar
  52. Wiener, A. (2013). Fiber-optical illusion. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  53. Zorina, A., and Dutton, W.H. (2014). Building broadband infrastructure from the grassroots: The case of home lans in Belarus. Journal of Community Informatics, 10, 2, Accessed 15 January 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations