 |
Topics:
Civic Communication
Creating
Public Space in Cyberspace
The Rise of the New Community Networks
Doug
Schuler
Internet World
State of the Union Issue
November, 1995
Reprinted with permission
Doug Schuler is Chair of Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility and Director of Community
Networking on the CPN Managing Editorial Team.
If asked
to name the fourth largest consumer online service in the world
most people would be hard pressed for the answer. Currently weighing
in with over 380,000 registered users - right behind CompuServe,
America Online, and Prodigy - is the National Public Telecomputing
Network (or NPTN), a nonprofit corporation that serves as the
parent organization for a loose-knit, grassroots alliance that
currently links "Free-Net" community computing network services
in over 50 locations in the US, Canada, Europe, and the Pacific
Rim. When the hundreds of other efforts going by such names as
community networks, public access networks, civic networks, community
computing centers, telecommunities, and telecottages are included
in the total it adds up to what Apple Senior Scientist Steve Cisler
calls a "community computing movement."
What
is a Community Network?
While NPTN probably
represents the most organized of the community networking efforts,
with its 50 operational Free-Net systems and 120 organizing committees
working to launch their own systems, there are almost as many approaches
as there are projects. Even given this wide variety, there is enough
overlap that we can offer a common definition. Community networks
are an attempt to use computer network technology to address the
needs of the community. A major part of that effort is spent making
computing facilities available to everybody in a community, especially
those without ready access to the technology. Developers often have
a strong sense of community responsibility (see, for example, the
"Principles of the Seattle Community Network" sidebar) and work
with community activists and organizations to ensure that useful
information can be found on the system. And although somewhat out
of step with recent trends towards commercialization of the Internet,
most community network developers insist on the utopian ideal that
the services be provided without charge. Cognizant of the fact that
the poor have been generally left out of the network arena, developers
are actively working to ensure that free public access sites (for
example at all Seattle Public - and many other cities as well -
Library branches). Other are finding homes for discarded AT and
XT class computers and older generation modems for people and organizations
that are interested in exploring the on-line world but lack the
resources to buy their own equipment. Community networks are not
designed to be on-ramps to the Internet, however, as this metaphor
implies that the purpose of the system is to help people escape
from their local community. While virtually all community network
systems do offer access to at least some Internet services (e-mail
at a minimum) the focus of a community network is on the local community.
To that end it is important to involve local organizations and individuals
in a democratic process that guides both the design and the operation
of the network.
Some
History
The world's
first community network system, Community Memory in Berkeley, California,
was started in the early 1970's by Efrem Lipkin, Lee Felsenstein,
and Ken Colstad to serve as a model for facilitating the free exchange
of information to communities around the world. From a variety of
public locations including community centers, the Public Library,
and Milt's Laundromat, participants could read forums for free,
contribute their thoughts for a quarter, or start a new forum for
a dollar. With this approach, everything that could be found on
the system was placed there by a member of the community. The system
included forums on "Peoples' Park discussion around Peoples' Park,"
" confessions of programming addicts, " Vietnam
Day Committee," " Look before you Join," "
" Senior Centers' Lunch Menus," ","
"" and " Grateful Dead information"
and many more.
One particularly
interesting Community Memory project was the "Alameda County War
Memorial" instituted by rock musician and antiwar activist Country
Joe McDonald (but included volunteers of all political persuasions).
The "virtual memorial" included the names of all the people from
Alameda County (which includes Berkeley and Oakland) who had died
in World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the War in Vietnam.
The system allowed people to search through the database and also
to add their own messages to the names much as people leave flowers
or other mementos at the Vietnam memorial in Washington, DC.
Several
interesting projects, including the New York Youth Network (NYYN),
Playing to Win (PTW) and Plugged-In (PI), were designed to address
issues of youth and poverty. The New York Youth Network started
in 1987 working with social service agencies to provide a communications
channel through which economically disadvantaged youths could
talk candidly about issues facing them including teen pregnancy,
gangs, smoking, and aggression in themselves and in their community.
NYYN focuses primarily on critical areas in the psychological
development of young people such as self-esteem.
Playing
to Win, first established by Antonia Stone in the basement of
a Harlem housing project in 1981 with 20 Atari 400s provides access
to computing technology in low-income communities through a network
of "community computing centers" across the US. Providing a public
center in which a wide range of capabilities (now including networking)
is available promotes both computing and traditional literacy
and economic self-sufficiency in addition to opportunities for
community-building and community projects (the facilities allow
participants to publish newsletters using desktop publishing software,
develop project proposals with word processors, or write budgets
using spreadsheet programs). There are now over 50 PTW affiliates
in the US, and there are plans to establish a national, self-sustaining,
self-governing network of 300-350 centers with support from the
National Science Foundation.
On the other
side of the country is East Palo Alto, California (not to be confused
with its upscale neighbor Palo Alto, home to Stanford University)
where Plugged In helps community youth learn videotaping, HTML
web page building, and other technical skills that they use to
implement community-based projects. Several of these projects
are now on their web site (see sidebar) and are based on extremely
important and timely topics. "Families in Transition," for example
explores how modern circumstances and poverty affect urban immigrant
families, while "No on 187" tells a short but powerful story about
the kids' opposition to California's Proposition 187 and how,
for example, it would deny medical services to undocumented children.
Things were and are also happening in rural areas. In Dillon,
Montana (population 4,000) in 1988 ex-dude rancher Frank Odasz
was creating the Big Sky Telegraph to help support community development
in the rural west and to help reduce the isolation of rural teachers
(one of his first jobs was electronically linking 40 rural schools
and 12 rural libraries). The goal of the Big Sky Telegraph is
to demonstrate "low-cost, low-tech, high-imagination, scaleable
networking models" and the system now supports over 5000 mostly
rural users. Odasz is now involved with projects in Nebraska,
Wyoming and other western states in addition to his work in Montana.
In Santa
Monica, California, in the late 1980's, the city government instituted
a landmark experiment (with guidance from Ken Philips and Joseph
Schmitz) in promoting community-oriented, participatory democracy
within their city by establishing the free (to residents) Public
Electronic Network (or PEN) system. PEN provides access to city
government information including city council agendas, reports,
public safety tips and the library's on-line catalog and to government
services such as granting permits or registering petty thefts.
There are conversational venues as well. Citizens can send e-mail
to public officials and city servants and to each other. They
can also participate in electronic conferences that cover a wide
variety of local civic issues. PEN has also served as an important
case study for understanding issues of electronic democracy as
they play out in the real world. Some important cautionary tales
have emerged from this pioneering system as it was subjected to
everyday use from a variety of Santa Monicans.
Tom Grundner's
groundbreaking work on the "St. Silicon's Hospital" medical BBS
in 1986 led to the creation of the Cleveland Free-Net (which now
has over 40,000 registered users and over 16,000 logins per day)
and, ultimately NPTN, the organization devoted to the creation
of Free-Net systems worldwide. In the Cleveland Free-Net "electronic
city" (see sidebar) 100s of community organizations including
Alcoholics Anonymous/Al-Anon, Habitat for Humanity, the Handicap
Center, the Lesbian/Gay Community Service Center, United Way Services,
the Scouting Center, the Museum of Natural History, the Alzheimer's
Disease Support Center, the Center for International Health, the
Pediatric Information Resource Center, Bioethics Network of Ohio,
Cleveland Children's Museum, and the Cleveland Institute of Music
assume responsibility for maintaining the information in their
own area. Cleveland Free-Net has an innovative question and answer
forum that is shared with Heartland Free-Net (in Peoria, Illinois)
and others. On the Cleveland system, for example, there is a question
and answer forum on AIDS and HIV issues that is conducted by a
registered nurse.
Motivation
The first generation
of community network developers described in the section above have
now been joined by thousands of others. What are developers trying
to accomplish with these systems? There is no simple answer. Many
reasons have been advanced: rebuilding civil society, securing access
to information to disadvantaged or disabled people, community economic
development, improving access to health care and health care information,
providing forums for minority and alternative voices, improving
communication among civic groups, and improving literacy were all
mentioned by community network developers at the first "Ties that
Bind" community networking conference in 1994 sponsored by Apple
Corporation and the Morino Institute. How well they'll fare at reaching
these goals will depend on several factors, many of which are beyond
their control.
Accompanying
these idealistic visions of community network developers is the
widespread perception among the general population that community
and civic values are declining. Although difficult to quantify
in general, this perception (at least for the US) is supported
by empirical evidence. Harvard University professor Robert Putnam
cites falling memberships in almost all civic associations in
the US over the last 30 years from PTA, church groups, and labor
unions, to the League of Women Voters, the Red Cross, and political
party identification.
Many people
believe that computers and computer networking may have the potential
to provide some relief to the increasing - and alarming - disparity
between the economic haves and have nots in the US and in the
rest of the world. Ironically, the "computer revolution" has probably
helped to exacerbate this problem by providing people of the more
privileged classes with tools that helped them to communicate
more rapidly with each other and access information more rapidly.
Computer
networks, unlike traditional media, provide the opportunity for
many-to-many communication, opening up immense possibilities for
increased political participation for all people. This potential
comes at a time when the democratic process is in danger of becoming
dominated by the strong economic interests, including the hordes
of lobbyists that encircle Washington, DC, fantastically expensive
political campaigns (the loser in the California senate race spent
30 million dollars!), and the concentration of media ownership
that Berkeley journalism professor Ben Bagdikian calls the "media
monopoly."
Community
Services
Communities
can be thought of as living systems. And just as a human body has
a skeletal system, circulatory system, and other systems that sustain
its life, a community has several "systems" or "core values" that
help sustain its life. These six systems or core values - culture
and conviviality, education, strong democracy, health and social
welfare, economic equity and opportunity, and information and communication
- are essential to the life of the community.
Community
information is critical to community networks and information
that supports the core values is especially valuable. Although
the possibilities are nearly endless, some examples include information
on arts and crafts fairs and classes, writing workshops, local
dance and theater events, (culture and conviviality) homework
hotlines, "Ask Mr. Science" forums, parents' forums, on-line curricula
and lesson plans (education) e-mail to local government agencies,
city council agenda and public meeting schedules, forums on local
issues, legal documents on-line (strong democracy) social services
information, environmental information (health and social welfare)
job listings, forums for unemployed workers (economic equity and
opportunity) library catalogs on-line, ethnic and alternative
newspapers, letters to the editors of newspapers, and civic journalism
projects (information and communication).
Hardware
and Software
The rapidly
falling prices of computer and communications technology and the
increasing availability and decreasing cost of accessing the Internet
have made community networks feasible and community networks now
are running on virtually any platform from Macintoshes and PC clones
to UNIX workstations. The important thing is that the system be
able to handle lots of simultaneous users (the Cleveland Free-Net
(the world's largest) has over 16,000 users on a given day and over
400 simultaneous users). The urban Free-Nets usually use UNIX platforms
and the Free-Port software, a text-only, menu based system that
was developed at Case Western, while rural Free-Nets often use the
FirstClass BBS system (from SoftArc in Markham, Ontario, Canada)
in their implementation. Although Free-Port supports other organizational
approaches most Free-Nets (and some commercial systems as well)
use the city metaphor for storing and navigating to information.
Thus finding information about government regulations would be found
in the government center or "city hall", educational information
would be found in the "schoolhouse."
In general
community networks provide services like those found on other
network systems. Access to Internet e-mail is an important capability
and many community networks provide other Internet services such
as ftp, telnet, or gopher as well. Although many community networks
provide a WWW interface to the world it is more problematic to
provide graphical web browsing capabilities to users that are
logged on to the community network system. For that reason, Lynx,
the text-based web browser is sometimes offered as an interface
for browsing the local system that can also be used to access
other resources on the Internet.
The
Organization of Community Networks
Community networks
currently rely on volunteers for some or all of the labor that's
needed to run them. The volunteers are usually organized into committees
such as hardware/software, staff and facilities, ways and means,
outreach, and services. Since volunteers will provide the central
foundation for the community network effort in the foreseeable future,
it is essential to adopt approaches that work well with a volunteer
base. Community networks are organized in a variety of ways and
in association with a wide variety of strategic partners. Many projects
are run by independent, nonprofit organizations while others are
under the auspices of another organization, like a university, a
library, or a government agency. Although I don't know of any for-profit
community networks, it is possible, though unlikely, for a commercial
system to be developed that meets community needs as effectively
as a nonprofit community network.
Strategic
alliances with other institutions may be necessary for long term
survivability of community networks and current relationships
offer some hints of what shape these future relationships might
take. Community networks could be aligned with any institution
with shared objectives including community access television centers,
public television or radio stations, educational institutions,
government institutions, libraries, or social service agencies.
Colleges
and universities make strong candidates for possible alliances
Case-Western Reserve University in Cleveland, for example, has
been a strong proponent of the Cleveland Free-Net since its inception.
While other universities in the US and around the world have also
supported community networking efforts with donated staff, computer
facilities, or office space, there seems to be some reluctance
within higher education to get involved in community work. Government
or library alliances both also intriguing if problematic possibilities.
Government has clear responsibilities in this area - as nations
rely more on electronic communication it will be essential to
ensure equitable access to the "infrastructure of democracy."
Libraries, also, make strong candidates due to their commitment
to free public access and freedom of speech. Unfortunately libraries
are under continual pressure to reduce their expenditures and
they might be expected to reduce other services to pay for community
networks - robbing Peter to pay Paul! At any rate it is essential
that the community network organization be largely independent
of any organization it's affiliated with. It is also important
to maintain high levels of unpaid volunteer involvement - even
while "professionalizing" some aspects of the operation with paid
employees. This will help ensure that costs are kept low and that
community involvement is kept high.
Funding
for Community Networks
Community networks
need funding for hardware, modems, Internet connections and telephone
lines. If community networks are going to be permanent community
institutions like public libraries, they will also need funding
for ongoing development, office facilities, and staffing. Funding
thus far has been sporadic. Computer companies including Apple,
Hewlett-Packard, Sun, and Digital, among others and some telephone
companies, including US West and AT&T, have made substantial contributions,
while there has also been some foundation support. The Corporation
for Public Broadcasting (CPB), through their "Community Wide Education
and Information Services" (CWEIS) program have supported a variety
of interesting projects involving CPB radio and television affiliates.
The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) of
the US Department of Commerce helped fund nearly 100 projects in
the first year of its Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program (TIIAP) but was nearly killed in its second year
by congress.
Developers
have been creative in finding ways of money. In Seattle, the University
Science Shop and the Red Hook Brewery (and others) have agreed
to pay for one telephone line for a year and others are being
sought. If community networks are going to become a community
resource, they ultimately will need a more reliable form of funding,
however. Many possibilities are being discussed including providing
some fees at a cost. While this may sound reasonable, there are
many cautions both philosophical and immediately practical. In
a democratic society, we take it for granted that many services
are "free" at least we don't pay for them directly when we use
them. Police and fire protection fall under this category as well
as public parks, schools, and libraries. Additionally it's not
clear that the systems could survive based on fees alone. After
all, community networks generally are interested in helping all
people in the community and the poor (who generally aren't computer
users) have little money with which to support the systems. Although
far from a representative view, I believe that public funding
sources be it based on taxes or revenues derived similarly to
the way that public access television stations are now funded
will be necessary. Whether we as communities or as nations make
that commitment is an open question.
Challenges
Ahead
At the 1994
Ties that Bind Community Networking conference sponsored by Apple
Computer and the Morino Institute, Mario Morino asked the question,
"Are community networks part of a social phenomenon that is destined
to stall or implode . . . or do they represent a vibrant force,
capable of building on the knowledge they have accumulated, adapting
to a rapidly changing world and community needs, and ultimately
achieving positive, lasting social change in their communities?"
Although community network development is surging and systems are
operational or planned worldwide there are any number of difficult
challenges ahead, including technical as well as social, political,
and economic ones.
The user
interfaces for community networks need improvement. They need
to be powerful yet easy to use. Community network developers face
a substantial challenge in this area because many users want the
more sophisticated, graphically oriented displays but text-only
is the "lowest common denominator" used on the terminals of the
less economically advantaged. As Steve Cisler, senior scientist
at Apple and community networking advocate puts it, "How can you
keep them on VT100 once they've seen Mosaic?" In addition to software
issues, there are hardware and infrastructure issues. What changes
would be necessary if as many people in a community use their
community network as use telephones or televisions? And what delivery
channels might be useful for community networks in the future?
Cable? Wireless?
It is important
to realize that current on-line systems offer very little for
the economically disadvantaged. It will be necessary to provide
services that are genuinely useful for people who aren't being
served. Beyond that, it will be necessary to turn talk into action
and help develop projects that help empower poor communities.
Sometimes we forget that talk is, after all, cheap, and talk alone
will not address the problems that are ailing communities.
There are
also some serious threats to community networks, including legislative
attempts to promote "decency" in cyberspace. Many of these proposals
(the Exon bill, for example) would levy hefty fines against providers
(the community networks, in this case) if anything that the community
found "indecent" was posted on the system. This bill would put
community network developers in the uncomfortable and impossible
position of having to act as full-time censors on the system.
Needless
to say, the major focus of network development, both financially
and from a media standpoint, is on commercialization and privatization
of networked services. Increasingly, large corporate interests
are attempting to frame our view of what telecommunications technology
and services of the future ought to look. Recently a large number
of public-interest, social service, and public sector groups have
convened a Telecommunications Policy Roundtable (TPR) to help
fight this trend, and other regional and municipal groups (like
TPR-New England and others in Chicago, New York, Seattle, and
other places) have also sprung up. Is it time for community developers
to work together more actively? And if they do, what issues will
they address?
The
Future of Public Computing
The ultimate
challenge is to cultivate broad support in order to institutionalize
community networks in a suitable way. It is important for supporters
of public space in cyberspace to work now on many levels - from
community education and community network development to policy
development and political action to ensure that the developing "National
Information Infrastructure" (NII) actually supports community needs.
As technology scholar Langdon Winner explains, "Because choices
tend to become strongly fixed in material equipment, economic investment,
and social habit, the original flexibility vanishes for all practical
purposes once the initial commitments are made." He then says that,
"The same careful attention one would give to the rules, roles,
and relationships of politics must also be given to such things
as the building of highways, the creation of television networks,
and the tailoring of seemingly insignificant features on new machines,"
which seems particularly appropriate in relation to Community computer
networks.
Tom Grundner
of the National Public Telecommunications Network likens free
public computing to free public libraries, " I can't envision
a 21st century without free public computing." Free public computing
is a visionary concept befitting a caring and democratic country.
Community networks could become a cornerstone of that vision but
that will only happen if people work to make it happen.
Back
to Civic Communication Index
|
