4.0 Introduction.

4.1 Basic technological paradigm.

4.2 Common types of CMC systems.

4.2.1 Major corporate online services.

All operated out of the United States and owned by large corporations, the consumer-oriented online giants include such widely recognized brand names as America Online (AOL), CompuServe, the Microsoft Network (MSN) and Prodigy. At the time of writing AOL was the largest of these services, with over six million registered users.

These services emphasize both connection to the physical network and the provision of information content. The latter emphasize exclusive online services produced in conjunction with large mass-media companies such as Time-Warner or the various large American newspaper chains. Many of these online services are available only as extra-charge subscription services, over and above the normal connection fees. As noted above, these large networks are US-based, {10} and therefore their information content is correspondingly oriented towards American cultural, political and social interests, particularly at a national scale.

In addition to such mass media style content, the online giants also offer the usual array of electronic communications services such as private email and access to large libraries of freely available computer software.

It is important to note that historically most of these networks have relied upon carefully-guarded proprietary software programs and protocols to allow users to connect. In addition to being required to use this custom software to get online, users could not use one network's software with another network. Only recently have online services begun to rely upon modified Internet protocols based on public standards. As a result these online giants are tightly-controlled, centralized private information systems. In fact, in the early years it was often not possible to send email between competing networks except through cumbersome gateways. This reliance on proprietary technology is shifting rapidly as the Internet model gains dominance, but whether based on proprietary or open technical standards, the online services will remain tightly controlled private systems.

This control extends to the services' content as well, even when user-created. In its early years Prodigy generated considerable controversy by employing teams of 'editors' who would censor messages that the company considered offensive. This became a particularly contentious issue when it became apparent that the company was also deleting messages critical of its editorial policies.

More recently AOL has installed filter software to block posts containing offensive or potentially offensive words. This software has also proved to be controversial. In particular, some women's groups and breast cancer organizations complained that postings made by their members were automatically censored by AOL, simply because they contained the word 'breast.' That such a word should be deemed offensive is naturally an affront to these organizations, and to many women. (Boston Globe, 1995.) Although AOL hastily changed its software to permit the use of the word 'breast' the issue raises important questions as to who determines what constitutes offensive content. {11}

Questions of corporate control extend far beyond censorship of allegedly offensive material, however. In July of 1996 AOL reversed a week-old policy to enforce the use of English in a forum on its system following a storm of protest from Spanish-speaking soccer fans. The fans were incensed that their posts were being removed by system administrators on the basis of language. (Associated Press, 1996b.)

4.2.2 Commercial Internet service providers.

The Internet, which had its origins as an academic and research network in the 1960s, is rapidly becoming the prime arena for online CMC, in large part because its technological base relies on relatively open and public standards developed by non-profit committees and industry consortia. As Carpenter comments, "Fortunately, nobody owns the Internet, there is no centralized control, and nobody can turn it off. Its evolution depends on rough consensus about technical proposals, and on running code." (Carpenter, 1996.)

The Internet is thus still a fairly diverse market ranging from small garage operations running off a converted home computer and a handful of modems to very large networking companies controlling dialup pools in dozens of host cities. Although it was originally built and administered by government-funded research institutions, the Internet today is now run largely by private corporations.

Commercial Internet service providers (ISPs) usually do not focus on exclusive information content. Rather, they generally just provide physical access to the network through extensive modem dialup facilities. Outside organizations - from students running personal Web pages on university computers to large company sites run primarily as advertising or promotional ventures to corporate subscription-only sites - are the providers of actual information content.

However, the ISP market is changing rapidly. Originally just a niche hobbyist market, the commercial Internet has seen explosive growth over the past two to three years. Future growth is likely to occur at the expense of the small startup operations, however, as the larger providers use their sizeable economic resources to expand into this market. It is probable that the current Canadian ISP marketplace of thousands of small cottage industry providers will be narrowed down to a handful of extremely large players, many owned by giant US telecommunications corporations, within the next few years. This consolidation of the marketplace will undoubtedly increase as secure encrypted protocols for exchanging credit information gain widespread acceptance, and the Internet becomes the precursor of a global ubiquitous information system as common as the telephone.

As a result of this commercial growth there is increasing overlap between the large corporate online services and the commercial ISPs. All of the giants now offer some form of Internet access, to varying degrees, through their systems. They are also developing ways in which their pay-per-view content delivery model can be implemented over the Internet.

On the whole, ISPs have been resistant to censorship issues. In large part this is because of the technical difficulties of controlling or blocking the sheer volume of content that passes through their systems. Except in cases of clear abuse (an individual using their system to attack other systems or target other users' mailboxes indiscriminately, for example) ISPs generally prefer to take the position that they are common carriers, much like telephone systems. Common carriers are not responsible for the content that passes through their systems, unlike bookstores or magazines.

4.2.3 Bulletin Board Systems.

Finally, there is the small market of private bulletin board systems. (BBSs) These can range from a single home computer and phone line in an enthusiast's basement to large professional multi-line installations that approach commercial ISPs in scope. Private BBSs have been in existence since their earliest days of microcomputers, and tend to focus on small hobbyist and specialist interests.

Although there is a thriving underground community of BBS users and operators, the BBS world has never been able to attract significant mainstream attention, largely remaining the domain of the computer-user hobbyist. It is likely that the significance of BBSs will decrease as the Internet becomes more widely used and the bulletin boards become small outposts on the Internet. Generally, private BBSs are free for anyone to dial up and use, although the larger systems tend to operate on a subscription basis, levying fees for access.

Some BBS networks, such as Tom Jennings' intentionally anarchic FidoNet system of informal basement operations across the world, had interesting potential as grassroots information networks but were never able to attain large-scale mass appeal and move beyond the underground or hobbyist markets.

4.3.1 - i) Local.

Community networks are self-consciously local in terms of audience, ownership and content. 'Local' in this context is usually defined as being municipal or regional in nature. Since the community networks normally rely on regular telephone lines for their client connections, their catchment area is usually defined by the free telephone calling area within which their central server is located. They therefore implicitly end up inheriting the political, economic and social decisions that were made when that local dialling area was demarcated. This is an important point, as it means that the geographical limits to each community network are not, on the whole, defined by the network itself but by external factors.

Generally, community nets are operated by non-profit societies that rely largely on volunteer labour. These societies vary in structure, but frequently consist of a core volunteer board of directors, sometimes a small contingent of paid staff to maintain the system and coordinate volunteers, and a large and relatively informal pool of unpaid volunteers who carry out the bulk of the work.

Finally, in addition to being locally owned and controlled, community nets include in their mandate the encouragement of local discussions and the participation of local community organizations. This is in sharp contrast to the majority of commercial services, which generally do not interest themselves in small-scale local concerns.

Only BBSs can be seen as operating at this particular level. Most commercial services do not focus on the provision of local content, and the larger companies generally are not locally owned except in the case of some major metropolises. This is likely to change in the future, however, as commercial enterprises exploit the local market niche, much as large media conglomerates have purchased most small local Canadian newspapers. In fact, many community network activists are concerned about the possibility that aggressively-marketed commercial services will undermine many aspects of community nets in the near future by selling and attempting to monopolize local content.

4.3.2 - ii) Universal Access.

Community networks strive to ensure that everyone in the community has an equal voice and an equal opportunity for participation on the system. Most offer dialup modem lines at no or minimum cost, so that users unable to pay the regular monthly fees charged by commercial online services can still afford access. Even community networks that levy fees offer some provisions for access by the disadvantaged.

Naturally, individuals in the community with low or no incomes usually cannot benefit from dialup lines, as the presence of such lines assumes that the user has access to a personal computer and a telephone. Accordingly, an important feature of most community networks is the active provision of freely accessible computer terminals in public locations such as community centres and libraries.

Because most community networks are connected to the global Internet they are also accessible to those users with access to computer networks via commercial pay accounts, user accounts in the workplace or student accounts at school or a university.

This emphasis on access is an important difference from commercial services, most of which generate a majority of their income from charging users for access to the network. Commercial entities are also unlikely to be interested in providing free and thus non-revenue public access sites, except perhaps for the odd terminal as a promotional device.

BBSs are similar to community networks in this regard, but again most systems with more than just a couple of telephone lines involve access charges. A community hobbyist is likely to be able to support one or two telephone lines out of his or her own pocket while accepting occasional donations, but this funding model cannot be extended to large multi-line systems.

4.3.3 - iii) Community Outreach.

The essential aim of commercial systems is naturally the development of a profitable and growing user base. Their primary efforts are thus directed towards acquiring users likely to generate income on their system; they are not in business to give services away for free. Nor are they likely to involve themselves in the extensive cross-subsidization process that telephone companies are required by law to do in order to ensure universal service. Additionally, the computer hardware required to access online services costs money, as do home telephone lines.

One critical consequence of these economic issues is that access to most information services today can be broken down fairly sharply on an income basis. In simple terms, the middle-class and wealthy can afford computer technology and thus CMC; the poor cannot. In a 1995 study of US Internet users O'Reilly & Associates found that slightly over half of their study group had a 1994 household income of between $35,000 and $75,000 per year. (US dollars) Only 5% of their survey group earned less than $15,000 per year. (O'Reilly, 1995a)

There are other connections that can be made between income and access to communications technology. A 1994 study in Chicago reported by Charles Piller suggests that plans made by Ameritech, the local telephone company, to wire the city for advanced networks amount to "electronic redlining." In other words, Ameritech was intending to wire affluent communities for these new services, while bypassing low-income areas inhabited largely by racial minorities. This the company allegedly did for purely economic reasons - the installation of fibre optic technology and even full-duplex switched cable is a costly endeavour - but the results are potentially devastating for the economic, social and political prospects of the disadvantaged. (Piller, 1994.)

An increasing reliance on advertising sales may alter this balance somewhat if it proves successful as a revenue-generation model - network providers would increase advertising content in order to subsidize network provision costs. But unless advertising sales prove popular and sustainable, it is unlikely that this alone will eliminate end-user network access charges. Additionally, the prospect of a world saturated with even more advertising content than is already the case may be discomfiting for some.

Community networks, driven by community development goals, are not interested in encouraging just the wealthy alone to use their systems. In fact, many community nets make a strong effort to encourage the disadvantaged to sign up and become regular users. They often maintain community outreach programs in which volunteers go out and promote their system to the community on a small-group basis. Many attempt to sponsor public access sites, frequently through local public libraries, so that users without home computers or home telephone lines can still get connected.

Implicit in this goal of encouraging the disadvantaged is the view that access to computer-mediated communications is itself beneficial or, at the very least an important technology that, for better or for worse, is becoming increasingly entrenched in everyday life. Individual organizations may have different approaches to community outreach - from evangelical zeal to quiet encouragement - but the basic messages are the same: access to CMC should not be purely for the wealthy, and the increasing chasm between the worlds of the information haves and information have-nots must be narrowed. Although it varies in importance from organization to organization, this essentially political intention underlies all community networks.

BBSs, with their usual focus on a small hobbyist community, are unlikely to extend their limited outreach efforts beyond computer user groups or specific hobbyist interests. They may, however, be involved with basic computer literacy efforts organized by computer user groups.

4.3.4 - iv) Non-commercial and Diverse nature of Content.

As community networks are generally run by volunteer boards, they tend to represent a slightly wider, or at least different, range of views than those of commercial networks. Commercial online services are driven by marketplace demands and often place a great deal of emphasis on commodified brandname information products. Many corporate services are, in fact, owned or partly owned by some of the same interests that control the mainstream mass media. Even those that are not are deeply involved in joint ventures with mass media giants of all kinds. Some of these ventures are of large economic significance. For example, AOL and CompuServe fought in late 1995 an extremely expensive battle for the privilege of hosting the New York Times' online material. {12} (Associated Press, 1995b.)

By contrast, community networks are non-profit organizations and thus not driven or generally affected by the particular demands of advertisers or shareholders. They frequently promote small-scale community organization and participation, rather than viewing computer-mediated communications as a profit-oriented enterprise somewhat akin to broadcast television. Therefore the information content on community networks usually has much lower production values (less slick and professional in appearance) than commercial services, but has the potential to be more in touch with the needs and interests of its smaller, local and more specialized audiences.

It should be noted that community networks are not entirely unique in this respect, however. There are several well-established online systems in existence today that have long served the activist community. For example, in Canada the Web {13} has provided online communication and conferencing facilities for environmental groups, peace groups and other non-profits since 1987.

The Web is a member of the Association for Progressive Communications, (APC) a worldwide cooperative association of similarly-minded non-profit online systems. The scope of the APC is truly global. Current members are AlterNex in Brazil, Antenna in the Netherlands, Chasque in Uruguay, ColNodo in Colombia, ComLink in Germany, Econnect in the Czech Republic, Ecuanex in Ecuador, GlasNet in Russia, GlasNet-Ukraine in the Ukraine, GreenNet in the UK, Histria & Zamir Transnational Net in Slovenia, the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) in the US, which runs the PeaceNet, EcoNet, ConflictNet, LaborNet and WomensNet networks, Knooppunt in Belgium, LaNeta in Mexico, Nicarao in Nicaragua, NordNet in Sweden, Pegasus Networks in Australia, PlaNet in New Zealand, SangoNet in South Africa, Wamani in Argentina and the Web in Canada. (Association for Progressive Communications, 1996.)

Although the APC networks focus on the non-profit community and are driven by a set of social goals on a progressive political agenda, they do not address local issues the way community networks do. The Web, for example, serves all of Canada via long-distance dialup, public pay packet-switching networks and Internet (telnet) connections, but is based in Toronto. It also concentrates on facilitating communications between non-profit activist organizations across the country, not necessarily local community groups.

4.3.5 - v) Information as a community good, not a commodity.

An important consequence of community networks' emphasis on free or nearly free access is that of de-emphasizing the commodification of information. Commercial systems, by their very nature, view their information content as a highly valuable and marketable commodity, and aggressively defend their intellectual property. Correspondingly they tend to maintain an asymmetrical model of content, in which mass-market, professionally-produced and billable information is strongly favoured over user-produced and less marketable content. The proliferation of online pay services such as electronic shopping malls also tends to reinforce this notion of the network as essentially an efficient conduit for directing money out of users' pockets.

By casting the individual as a participant in discussions, the community networks generally maintain a less unequal balance of information flow to and from the user. Community nets also encourage local community groups to post information about upcoming events, services and other material of general community concern. The provision of this type of information, usually of interest to small audiences in local communities, is not a particularly profitable activity and is thus not a major aspect of the average commercial system.

4.3.6 - vi) Community Participation.

4.3.7 - vii) Social goals.

Implicit in this entire discussion is the basic underlying observation that community networks are intended to achieve certain social goals. As noted earlier, large corporate systems exist as profit-driven businesses. They are there to exploit a particular market with the interest of generating wealth for their owners. BBSs generally exist out of personal or hobby interests, though occasionally one finds a BBS dedicated to generating discussion on a particular social issue or cause.

By contrast the non-profit community networks are largely seen by their organizers and supporters as tools to achieve certain social aims. As mentioned in the introduction, these aims include promoting the building of local community, promoting democratic ideals, ensuring that the disadvantaged have the same access to essential technology as the rest of society and promoting a public voice on the information infrastructure.

The next chapter will present a brief history of community networks, and show how these general goals and values have arisen and evolved.