Miller and Slater 5-7
A number of comparisons can certainly be made between the Internet and other information and communication systems, but the numerous differences between the role of the Internet in Trinidadian society and that of the television in the U.S. (for example) stem only partially from differences in the technology: the other critical part, which is arguably the central concern of any book that claims to employ an ethnographic approach, is the cultural context in which the system is situated. While I don’t intend to discount the importance of the technology in any system of communication, I’m more interested here in how conclusions about the societal role of telecom systems are very much dependent on context (perhaps an obvious point, but nonetheless worth discussing).
The authors identify “dynamics of positioning” as one of the dimensions through which to view the Trini Internet; this “dynamic” can be used as part of a framework for understanding the way in which people use the Internet in any location, or indeed how they use any communication technology in any location. Each of the other course texts (Williams on TV, Douglas on radio, and Fischer on the telephone) focused on the telecommunications systems in the pioneering countries (namely the U.S. and the UK) in which the specific technologies and their incorporation into a social system were first widely deployed; the early development of these technological systems had far-reaching impacts and these nations continue to dominate the international media landscape. Small nations such as Trinidad, though not without certain degrees of agency, have had to adapt as peripherals in a technological landscape shaped and controlled by institutions of dominant metropolises (to borrow Miller and Slater’s use of these terms).
The authors state at the end of chapter 5 that in the unique context of Internet development in Trinidad, “the issue is not one of choice – the Internet is regarded as fate; it is about strategies of positioning between freedom and control that will allow Trinidad to realize itself.” (142). Here, ‘freedom’ is represented by Trinidadians’ fetishization of a completely deregulated telecoms market, and ‘control’ is embodied by the telecoms monopoly TSTT. This tension differs somewhat from the core tension identified by Williams as defining the early history of TV, that of competition/contrast between the ‘public service’ and the interests of commercial entities (36-37). In the case of Trinidadian telecommunications, the distinction between acting in the public good and protecting the open market for business is not so easily made, as the local telecomm monopoly (TSTT) is a joint venture between the government and a multinational telecoms company.
Though most Trinidadians express frustration at the perceived inefficiency of the local telecoms monopoly (TSTT) in facilitating Trini Internet development, Miller and Slater describe the nearly impossible task of the government in deciding how to move Trinidad into the optimal position for facilitating the realization of the nation’s expansive potential. The authors argue that “The reason these values [of freedom and the immense Trinidadian potential] can dominate such powerful institutions as huge media companies and the government itself is because they are not mere creatures of the political economy….The deepest concerns of Internet provision overlap considerably with values such as national sentiment and freedom that we have met in quite different contexts” (142).The government seems to know that Trinidad’s telecoms service is not the absolute best it could be, but the alternative is an uncertain future in which Trinidadian ideals of individual freedom and competitive ability could be subsumed in the open international markets that operate through the Internet. Thus it is faced with a frustrated citizenry so fixated on deregulation of the telecoms market as the path to freedom that it cannot see the very real possibility of a small nation such as Trinidad getting quickly swallowed up by the massive tides of multi-national media conglomerates if the government completely deregulates the market. While the government still has control over national telecoms, it still has some say in the positioning of Trinidad in relation to the rest of the world; but the limited capacity of the current telecoms infrastructure restricts the freedom of individual Trinidadians and Trini businesses to determine their own positioning vis-à-vis the Internet. There is obviously no easy solution, and this perspective of a small nation trying to chart the best course through a complicated and treacherous landscape of international interests is certainly new for this course.