While Canada boasts one of the most advanced information and communication technology (ICT)
infrastructures, its rural and remote areas are lagging behind. Rural and remote ICTs development is
presented as an uncharted domain. A model for rural and remote ICTs is proposed describing the
interrelationships among policy, organizational, community, and technological dimensions. The model
served as a guide to prepare three case studies that are briefly described. Several principles are described as
strategic policy and organizational insights into how rural and remote communities can harness ICTs. The
article concludes with a hypothesis highlighting the role of mediating organizations to secure affordable and
relevant ICT services and applications for rural and remote communities.
Canada boasts an aggressive information infrastructure policy that seeks to make it the most
connected country by the year 2000 (Government of Canada Information Highway Advisory
Council, 1997). The policy framework is reflected in a broad range of provincial and federal
funding grants to stimulate infrastructure upgrades, inform and train citizens, and enhance new
services and applications across most sectors of the economy. Being the ‘most connected country’
is a political goal open to interpretation through undefined indicators. According to at least one
measure, Canada’s overall telecompetitiveness is only second to Singapore’s, and ahead of the
United States (Hubert, 1996). According to other measures, such as Internet hosts per 1000
inhabitants, it comes fourth after the United States and three Scandinavian countries (Paltridge, 1999). It is clear that on a global scale, Canada boasts a very advanced information and
communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. It is certain too, however, that rural and remote
communities lag behind urban ones with regard to ICT infrastructure, services and human
resources. While some Canadian statistics suggest that the gapin information infrastructure and
use between urban and rural sectors may be shrinking (Thompson-James, 1999), the task of
servicing rural and remote areas remains relevant. This challenge constitutes a part of a growing
global infrastructure gapthat is very significant (Hudson, 1998; UNDP, 1999; Mansell & Wehn,
1998). The gap is not only between rural and urban populations; it is also closely associated with
education and income levels (Bruce & Gadsden, 1999).
Telecommunication investments are perceived as strategic tools for economic development of
rural areas of OECD member states (Ullman, Williams, & Emal, 1996; United States Department
of Commerce & United States Department of Agriculture, 2000; Bryden & Sproull, 1998; USDA
Economic Research Service, 1998; Richardson & Gillespie, 1996; Reimer, 1997; Parker &
Hudson, 1995; Cronin, McGovern, Miller, & Parker, 1995). Their reach into rural and remote
areas, however, is limited by weak demand (Bollier, 1988), partly as a direct result of their sparse
populations. In other words, the very areas that stand to gain the most from telecommunications
are the last ones to be serviced by the market.
A major challenge for Canadian telecommunication regulators is the fact that while on the one
hand market liberalization is a goal, on the other hand so is universal access. Managing these two
policy driving forces is particularly challenging when it comes to regulating services in remote
areas, as was the case with a recent ruling on high-cost serving areas (CRTC, 1999). Canadian
telecommunication infrastructure is increasingly owned by large corporate interests that compete
on a global scale. ‘‘In place of national policy-making, a global telecom and media policy regime is
emerging.’’ (Abramson & Raboy, 1999, p. 775) At the same time, a factor of central concern in
Canada is unity, national economic viability and cultural identity, all of which are tightly linked
to communication policy (Ganley, 1979). Today cultural and communication policies in Canada
are confronted with emerging global regimes that place economic and competitive pressures on
the sector (Science Council of Canada, 1992; Globerman, Oum, & Stanbury, 1993; Abramson &
Raboy, 1999).
