Access Ecology vs. Media Ecology

NETWORKS AND NEXUS

The relationship between place and the plexus (the web of networks that connect places) parallels that between messages (information and entertainment content) and media (the communications networks that carry them) is very much parallel.

Form and Function

Networks embody a continual feedback between Form and Function. The form of a network is its structure: the pipes, the links, the connections that define how things can move. The function is the activity that flows through those pipes: the trips, the messages, the energy, or the content. Neither can be understood in isolation. The form of a network enables and constrains its functions, while the functions flowing through a network pressure and reshape its form.

Place and Plexus

Transport is one familiar example. Roads, rails, and runways form the network. The function is mobility, the movement of people and goods. As cities grow and traffic increases, demand presses for new infrastructure. When that infrastructure is built, it changes accessibility and reshapes land use. The feedback is continuous: land use and transport evolve together. This is the core story in Planning for Place and Plexus [1, 2] and our work on co-evolution [18].

Medium and Message

The same dynamic plays out in media. The form is the communications network, printing presses, broadcast towers, undersea cables, fibre, and wireless spectrum. The function is the content, books, radio, television, blogs, podcasts, memes, and streams. The medium shapes the message, because the pipe shapes the possible [3, 4].

Media ecology treats media as environments that shape perception, culture, and institutions, not just as carriers of content [3, 4].

By parallel construction, access ecology is the study of urban access as an environment: how network forms and place patterns co-produce opportunities, how accessibility structures land markets and behaviour [6], how capacity changes induce travel and investment feedbacks [5,35], and how scale effects amplify flows and returns [7]. It embraces the research on land-use–transport interaction and co-evolution of networks and locations [15, 17, 18], and the accessibility-based planning practice that aligns land-use and network decisions around access outcomes [16, 19].

Innis tied media forms to spatial–temporal bias and to infrastructures of empire, including transport [29]. Castells’s ‘space of places vs space of flows‘ framed how networked communications reorganise space [30]. McQuire and Mattern document cities as media infrastructures [31, 32]. Our connection of Access Ecology and Media Ecology builds on Innis, Castells, and media-urbanism work, but pushes a paired metric–mechanism frame across cities and media.

Content or Contact

Odlyzko argues that, in communications markets, connectivity creates more user value than content. Historically and on the early Internet, person-to-person communication (phone calls, e-mail, SMS) dominated both use and willingness to pay, while “glamour” content drew attention but less expenditure. He points to the success of SMS versus WAP as a clean comparison, and stresses that even if content comes to dominate traffic volumes, the value to customers still centres on connection rather than carriage of packaged media [20, 21].

Odlyzko does not claim content is unimportant; he notes its cultural and political force, but separates influence from revenue and willingness-to-pay. That distinction underpins his later work with Briscoe and Tilly critiquing naive network-value claims: instead of Metcalfe’s n², a general communications network’s value grows closer to n log n, which tempers “build it for content and they will come” narratives [22]. De Sola Pool’s telephone work shows why person-to-person connection often drives willingness to pay more than packaged content, and how institutions and standards entrench paths over time [24, 25].

The broadcast era shows the same pattern in practice, as Barnouw’s history of U.S. radio and TV details the ways network form steered genres, scheduling, and investment [26, 27, 28]. Barnouw traces how radio’s sponsor-driven formats morphed into television genres and scheduling, showing how the network form steered the message long before platforms and feeds.

Topology and Terminals

Network architecture matters: grids, stars, hierarchies, and hubs. Terminal design (stations, interchanges, IXPs/CDN POPs) sets transfer friction and hub dominance in both realms.

Costs and Clicks

Network structure will affect costs, depending on technology. Generalised cost in transport (time, money, discomfort) maps to digital friction (latency, clicks, paywalls, cognitive load). Lowering impedance shifts route and mode choice, or channel and format choice.

Mechanisms and Models

Access Ecology Trip generation and accessibility models show how more capacity produces more traffic, and how improved accessibility raises land values and draws development. Suburbs follow highways, and high-rises cluster near rail [5, 6, 12, 13, 11].
Media Ecology. Bandwidth and latency set constraints. Dial-up favoured text. Broadband enabled music and then video. Smartphones and 5G made short-form video and livestreaming viable. Twitter’s early 140-character cap reflected SMS constraints, and the later shift to 280 changed what people could post [14].

Day-to-day learning and habit formation: travellers update routes, platforms update rankings; both create feedback loops that can stabilise or amplify patterns. We can even suggest testable hypotheses, such as:

• Induced demand: A 1% cut in generalised cost or increase in access has an analogue in a 1% cut in latency or clicks for short-form video attention share.

• Induced supply: New high-capacity links and new content delivery networks show similar induced supply signatures.

• Hubs in both systems obey similar heavy-tail degree distributions.

Protocols and Platforms

Open protocols (roads as common carriage, email/RSS/HTTP) versus closed platforms (toll roads, app stores, social feeds) shape who can connect, on what terms [34]. Governance of the “rules of the road” has close media parallels in API access, ranking, and moderation.

Barnouw covers lock-ins such as network–affiliate hierarchies, the Nielsen audience regime, and the NTSC colour standard, all of which show how early rules and standards persist and shape later practice [27, 28].

Pool foresaw communications convergence, where once-separate media share one packet network, and urged policy built on speech rights rather than channel silos [23].

Path and Persistence

Urban form reflects past investment. Streetcar suburbs of the nineteenth century, freeway suburbs of the twentieth, and rail-linked CBDs endure even when modes change [12, 13]. Media shows similar lock-in. QWERTY persists beyond its prime, and VHS beat Betamax despite technical claims to the contrary [10, 11].

Reliability and Resilience

Redundancy, recovery, and graceful degradation: detours and spare capacity in cities; caches, multi-homing, and mirrors in media. Shock response and failure modes matter as much as mean capacity.

Temporalities and Time-shifting

Peaks and scheduling (headways, dwell, timetables) parallel live vs on-demand streams, downloads, and buffering. Time policies, not just space, reallocate demand.

Scale and Spillovers

Transport networks scale with agglomeration. More people generate more interactions, trips, and investment, and the payoff is non-linear. Media networks scale with users. Platforms feed on their own size, a point often framed by Metcalfe’s law, and debated by network-economics critiques [7, 8, 9,22]. Barnouw charts the rapid post-1953 expansion, the build-out of coaxial and microwave relays, and the resulting three-network oligopoly, illustrating network effects and hub dominance [28].

Policy and Power

Policy picks winners in both domains. In transport, funding rules and zoning steer networks and land markets. In media, spectrum auctions, copyright, net-neutrality rules, and platform regulation set what content can exist and how it moves. Barnouw, e.g. documents the FCC TV Freeze (1948–1952), the channel-allocation decisions, and post-freeze licensing that set the market map for decades, a clear case of policy picking winners [27,28]. As with a rail franchise or freeway interchange raising land values, a rule on data caps or takedowns sets the terms of production.

Pricing and incentives steer flow. Congestion pricing, fares, and parking policy in cities mirror ad-funded vs subscription models and paywalls in media. Prices set priorities, ration scarce capacity, and shift behaviour.

• Equity: Who gains access or attention, and who bears the costs, is a design and policy choice.

• Externalities: Pollution and severance in transport have media analogues in spam, fraud, and misinformation.

Maintenance and Moderation

Operations and upkeep in transport (state of good repair, service quality) mirror content curation and moderation in media. Both are ongoing costs that shape trust and performance. Though there is a bit of a difference here, in that on transport it applies to the plexus not the place, while in communications, it applies to the message more than the medium.

Induction and Infrastructure

Induced demand. Widen a road, and traffic often fills it [5].
Induced supply. Rising demand for mobility drives campaigns for new links. In media, more bandwidth leads content to expand and fill the pipe, while rising demand for higher-quality video drives investment in fibre, CDNs, and 5G [14]. Broadcast adoption spikes led to investment surges in studios, transmitters, and relay lines, then more programming to fill the pipe, a classic demand-supply loop [28].

Accessibility and Attention

If accessibility is the currency of land use and transport, attention is the currency of media. Both are scarce. Both are contested. A metro station raises land value by lifting accessibility. A viral post raises platform value by capturing attention. In both systems, flows concentrate in hubs, bottlenecks emerge, and competition over capacity shapes outcomes.

Pairs, Not Parts

Form equals network (roads and rails, fibre and wireless). Function equals flow (mobility, media). Currency equals accessibility in cities, attention in media. Feedback equals induced demand and induced supply. Policy is the arbiter of which forms and functions thrive. These systems are dynamic, locked in co-evolution. To understand either Access Ecology or Media Ecology, we must study the pair, not the parts.

---

References

1. Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2007). Planning for Place and Plexus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935392 Taylor & Francis

2. Levinson, D. M., & Krizek, K. J. (2018). Metropolitan Transport and Land Use. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315684482 Taylor & Francis

3. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. Internet Archive

4. Postman, N. (1970). “The Reformed English Curriculum.” In High School 1980. nysgs.org

5. Cervero, R., & Hansen, M. (2002). Induced travel demand and induced road investment: A simultaneous equation analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 36(3), 469-490. JTEP

6. Hansen, W. G. (1959). “How Accessibility Shapes Land Use.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307.

7. Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). “Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities.” PNAS. PNAS

8. Briscoe, B., Odlyzko, A., & Tilly, B. (2006). “Metcalfe’s Law is Wrong.” IEEE Spectrum. IEEE Spectrum

9. Metcalfe, R. (2013). “Metcalfe’s Law after 40 Years of Ethernet.” IEEE Computer. Gwern

10. Cusumano, M. A., Mylonadis, Y., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1992). “Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta.” Business History Review. Cambridge Core

11. David, P. A. (1985). “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review. UCSB Economics Faculty

12. Warner, S. B. (1962). Streetcar Suburbs. Internet Archive

13. Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier. Internet Archive

14. Rosen, A., & Ihara, I. (2017). “Tweeting Made Easier.” Twtrinc Blog

15. Wegener, M. (2018). “Land-Use Transport Interaction Models.” International Encyclopedia of Geography. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-642-36203-3_41-1.

16. Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). “Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies.” Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692303000607.

17. Levinson, D. M. (2011). “The coevolution of transport and land use: An introduction.” Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(2), 1–3. https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/332.

18. Xie, F., & Levinson, D. M. (2011) “Evolving Transportation Networks”. Springer.

19. Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP). Integrated transport and land use planning (F0.2). https://www.atap.gov.au/framework/integrated-transport-land-use-planning/index.

20. Odlyzko, A. (2001). “Content is not King.” First Monday. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/833. First Monday

21. Odlyzko, A. (2001, rev.). “Content is not king.” Author manuscript PDF. https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications2.pdf. College of Science and Engineering

22. Briscoe, B., Odlyzko, A., & Tilly, B. (2006). “Metcalfe’s Law is Wrong.” IEEE Spectrum. Author version on publisher site. https://spectrum.ieee.org/metcalfes-law-is-wrong. IEEE Spectrum

23. Pool, I. de S. Technologies of Freedom (1983). Internet Archive

24. Pool, I. de S. (ed.) The Social Impact of the Telephone (1977). Internet Archive

25. Pool, I. de S. Forecasting the Telephone: A Retrospective Technology Assessment (1983). Internet Archive

26. Barnouw, E. A Tower in Babel: A History of Broadcasting in the United States to 1933 (1966). Internet Archive/World Radio History edition. World Radio History

27. Barnouw, E. The Golden Web: A History of Broadcasting in the United States, 1933–1953 (1968). Internet Archive. Internet Archive

28. Barnouw, E. The Image Empire: A History of Broadcasting in the United States, from 1953 (1970). Internet Archive / World Radio History. Link.

29. Innis, H. A. Empire and Communications; The Bias of Communication overview and primary claims. Author overview with book details. media-studies.ca

30. Castells, M. “Space of flows, space of places.” Excerpted chapter from The Information Age. Taylor & Francis

31. McQuire, S. The Media City: Media, Architecture and Urban Space (2008). Author/book page. Google Books

32. Mattern, S. Code and Clay, Data and Dirt: Five Thousand Years of Urban Media (2017). Author/book page. University of Minnesota Press

33. Standage, T. The Victorian Internet (1998). Link.

34. Levinson, D. (2024). Connected Institutions: Using Platform Powers to Advance Transport. Urban Science, 8(4). Link

35. Levinson, D., & Karamalaputi, R. (2003). Induced supply: A model of highway network expansion at the microscopic level. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 37(3), 297-318. JTEP