This quote from the first article will help set the direction.
Today’s Internet is treated just like another service in the image of the phone networks or even another channel on your Broadband Set Top Box. And to a large extent that image is reinforced by the central authority of ICANN as the dispenser of identifiers and identities.
But this isn’t in the spirit of the Internet which is defined by the user/developers outside the network. The Internet is just a name for the community of those cooperating and using common protocols. Instead of viewing the Internet as something we connect to we should view it as radiating from us and our devices. Our home networks reach out through community networks and beyond finding paths that work.
Put another way, he is saying the purpose of the infrastructure is to transport bits and nothing more. But, the business models of telcos and cable companies have them charging for "a service" instead. His example in his interview with Doc is that a bit in an SMS message costs much more to the consumer than a bit in a video stream but there is no difference in the two as far as the network is concerned.
I bring this up here because Nicaragua has a lot less existing infrastructure than the U.S. in terms of moving bits. It is growing rapidly but maybe there is still time to think about what Bob is suggesting. It boils down to free local connectivity, cacheing at a local level, community networks, ... This may all sound very complicated and technical (and, on one level it is) but the socio-political aspect of it is very simple.
Let's look at what this could mean for a community. I will pick the ficticious city of Netville, Nicaragua to talk about it. Netville has a population of 30,000 people and (for convenience) is located on the Pan American highway. It currently has only dial-up Internet access.
Step one is for Netville to get a whole bunch of WiFi access points and "scatter them around". That is, build a local network where all of the residents have access to a WiFi access point and all the access points talk to each other. This immediately means anyone with a computer and a WiFi card can talk to anyone else with the same thing in Netville. If Netville high shcool decides to make homework assignments available on-line, all the students can now have access. Same for government, ...
Now, while this may not seem unique, what you have is local communications with virtually no network costs. Contrast this with Estelí today. I have Enitel DSL. If I want to send a message to someone across the street that has a cable modem, the message has to go to the Enitel office (and I am not sure if that means here or in Managua) get routed to the gateway from Enitel to Estesa and then delivered over Estesa's network.
Estesa and Enitel want you to pay for sending that message because it used their facilities. But, that was only because there wasn't a local way to deliver the data. That is, their design forced an inefficiency.
I don't want to make this too complicated but let's just toss in video (let's say the 6PM news) over your "local network". If you want to watch the same show as 500 others in Netville, you just need to deliver one copy of the news to the Netville local network server. It is cached and routed to all who want to see it.
That should be enough to get some people interested and others lost. In social-political terms, it means looking for a local solution and then growing that solution to connect to other resources. It seems like something that could be done, would be good for Nicaragua/Nicaraguan communities and would even appeal to some organizations looking to make grants. Much like the grants for the sewer and water projects in Estelí, this is infrastructure. Up-front costs are much larger than operating costs so it doesn't build that dependency cycle.
Am I crazy?