This document is copyright © 1996 NK Guy (tela @ tela.bc.ca).

If you cite this thesis please include its URL, which is http://www.tela.bc.ca/ma-thesis/). Thanks!

Chapter Seven - Analysis.

7.0 Introduction.

Although building of local community is frequently cited by proponents of community networking as an important part of the movement's goals, interviews with respondents reveals a gap between the rhetoric and what is actually happening within each organization.

There appears to be more interest in the building of local community on the part of theorists interested in community networks than in community networks themselves. The concept of community building is frequently implied, alluded to or assumed in organizations' mission statements, but did not appear to be foremost in the minds of respondents.

This chapter examines this issue of community building in terms of three different areas: local community service, political and ideological goals of organizations, and the potential for increasing national and international communications. The first area, local community service, involves an examination of how community networks are said to focus on the information content provision at a localized level, and what activities they actually undertake in this sphere. The second area, political and ideological goals, examines an aspect of community networking identified as key by many respondents - ensuring a public space on the developing information infrastructure. The final area, the potential for national and international communications, examines the ways in which community networks can be used to foster global as well as local links.

7.1 Local community service.

A stated goal of most community networks is the promotion of some form of locally-oriented community focus. Community networks are generally not considered mere 'on-ramps to the information highway' by their supporters, to use somewhat passé jargon. Access to Internet services is an important component of most community networks, or else they would not have any Internet connectivity at all, but most organizations do not emphasize it. Instead community networks usually focus on the local, encouraging community organizations to host information content and online discussions. An important example of how community networks attempt to emphasize local connections is the way in which most of them do not allow telnet connections (direct Internet connections) to non-community network systems.

This local focus has an important altruistic non-profit motive not unlike that of traditional community service organizations. The community network is seen as offering an important community-enhancing service that promotes the well-being of the wider community, or civil society. According to Douglas Schuler, a founder of the Seattle Community Network in the US, "Developers often have a strong sense of community responsibility and work with community activists and organizations to ensure that useful information can be found on the system." (Schuler, 1995.) And Cisler writes, "The information contained in (community networks) as well as the relationships that form between the participants make up what I call an electronic greenbelt to reinforce and add value to the community." (Cisler, 1993.)

7.1.1 Mission Statements.

Sometimes these goals are stated implicitly and not explicitly. For example, the Vancouver CommunityNet has a broad set of goals, first among which is "To establish, operate and own a free, publicly accessible, community computer utility in the Lower Mainland of BC, providing the broadest possible range of information and possibilities for the exchange of experience, ideas and wisdom." (VCNA, 1993.) Though sweeping in its scope it nevertheless emphasizes the non-profit and local ('community') aspects of its services. Many British Columbia community networks, such as Campbell River and Mount Arrowsmith, have mission statements specifically modelled after Vancouver's.

Others, such as the Prince George Free-Net and NANO, do not use the word community but instead state that their networks shall be used to "to develop and manage local content on the (system) which shall be made available to users free of charge." Victoria, on the other hand, states that it will "promote and allow the exchange of information with the local community." All three community networks, therefore, specify local content as being of great importance to the system.

Other organizations have much more specific mission statements. Halifax's Metro*CAN organization that runs the Chebucto Community Network, for example, operates on a detailed set of principles and goals. These include "The Society will work to provide services that improve and advance the quality of life of our communities." and "The Society will strive to ensure that the information and services provided will be broadly-based, appealing and useful to as large a proportion of the community as possible." (Metro*CAN, 1994.)

Many have expressed a great deal of optimism about the potential of community networks to enhance community cooperation, understanding and cohesiveness. Schuler writes that some of the goals of community networking include "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 . . ." (Schuler, 1995.) The founders of the NCF were also optimistic about the possibilities for community involvement embodied in their system. In their original funding proposal, cited by Patrick and Black, they wrote:

Because a FreeNet is run by the community and for the community, it helps to encourage and to revitalize community involvement. It creates a partnership, a shared responsibility between the community and existing social institutions for developing and providing timely information. Many people are recognizing that traditional ways of sustaining a community are no longer working well. They are beginning to accept the idea that greater voluntary donations of time and energy are required if their community is to be maintained. The information offered on a FreeNet is provided as a voluntary effort by private citizens and community agencies. A FreeNet thus offers new opportunities for citizens to become more involved in their community, and for groups, institutions and governments to become more visible and accessible. (Patrick and Black, 1996b.)

However, amid this enthusiasm there are also some cautionary notes. Mario Morino asks:

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? (Morino, 1994.)

7.1.2 Respondents' Views of Community building.

Most of the respondents interviewed were not overwhelmingly positive about the work of their community networks in the area of community building to date. Community building was not universally acknowledged as a primary goal of each community network. In fact, some expressed the opinion that community building was not ranked particularly high within their organization or had difficulty understanding why I was asking the question. This may represent a weakness in my methodology, but even after my question was elaborated by defining building local community as the promotion of local geographical community as opposed to the promotion of an online, virtual, community, some respondents were unclear as to what I was asking. This suggests that they may not have considered building local community as a major goal of their community network. One respondent who had considered the question answered it this way:

I don't know of anywhere where (community networks have) become a major community builder. Certainly there isn't a huge participation in the community or political process as a result of FreeNets in the local, geographically limited sense. Nationally I think certain virtual communities or groups of common interests have gotten together and it's possible to generate 10, 15, 20 thousand emails around an issue on a North America-wide basis, but that's relatively simple. It doesn't involve any real commitment to links and to building.

Despite this, most respondents agreed after some consideration that the enhancing of the local physical community was one of a series of general goals and directions of the community networking movement as a whole, even if it was not a priority.

7.1.3 Lack of clarity and consensus.

There appeared to be a lack of clarity and consensus as to the goals and directions of community networking. The perceived primary goals of each network appeared to reflect the interests and priorities of the individuals interviewed. Each person naturally has his or her own reasons for becoming involved with their local community network, and those reasons tended to affect their opinions concerning the direction of each organization.

Quite often a person's background appeared to influence heavily their views of the priorities of their community network. Community networks serve many different functions and roles, so it is not surprising that respondents reported different priorities in terms of their vision for community networks.

For example, several respondents had backgrounds in libraries, and saw their community network as being an online resource analogous to a traditional print library. They thus envisaged access to electronic information as being a critical component of community networking. Others had backgrounds in schools and educational technology, and tended to express their views of community nets in broadly education-oriented terms. They did not view community networks as being tied directly with traditional systems of schooling, but rather as venues for more self-actualizing forms of individual education. Other respondents, particularly in rural areas, were quite keen on the potential for community nets as tools for local economic development. Several spoke enthusiastically of ways in which community networks could be used both to promote greater awareness of computer literacy in their area, as well as making their town more attractive for people to live in. Respondents with an interest and history in social activism expressed the hope that community networks would help provide a platform to be used by activist organizations. Other respondents were interested in the technology involved in community networking, and expressed a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm about the field of CMC in general.

These different priorities are not, in and of themselves, radically inconsistent for the most part. However they do represent different internal assumptions and directions. This internal organizational dissent and difficulty in establishing a common vision for the organization may be a primary cause of some of the tensions expressed within some of the organizations studied, particularly the larger ones. In the early days it may have seemed that anything was possible. Community networks could proceed in a variety of experimental directions, and their early successes may have helped convince participants that their vision of community networking was real, valid and important.

However, as time passed and the great economic and organizational challenges involved in maintaining a growing network infrastructure became more apparent, some of these internal tensions also became more evident. It became increasingly necessary for organizers of community nets to make difficult choices over the allocation of scarce resources. Should priority be given to expanding dialup service? Making more information available via the Web? Increasing training programs? Offsetting the costs of individual services? Questions such as these become increasingly difficult if there are differing internal views as to the basic priorities of the organization itself.

7.1.4 Specific community-related activities.

There are a number of concrete activities undertaken by community networks that are said to promote understanding and communication within a physical community. (Schuler, 1995. Morino, 1994.) These activities include:

All of these general activities were undertaken by the community networks examined, but respondents were uncertain as to what to say when asked if these initiatives had been successful in building local community. This is understandable, as it is difficult to assess or measure the success or failure of these activities without some form of study. Nevertheless, it is revealing to note that respondents were far more positive about describing the successes of community networks in providing individual services, such as access to email and Usenet news, than more community-oriented services, such as hosting local discussions and information bases maintained by local community groups. One commented that "We were really more targeting individuals. We wanted to see individuals in this region have access (to) and become able to participate in a global environment and be part of the revolution that was happening, and to have a presence and a role in that."

Another theme that emerged from several respondents was that of building a tool that people could use as they chose. One respondent said "I don't think that (my community network) association itself made any effort to build community. We made a place and community just moved in." Another said that he felt his community network had simply tried to reinforce the fact that the network was there for everyone. "Most initiatives in this area (ie.: community-building) are self-directed by our users and not by the organization."

Finally, there were frequently different responses from interviewees in rural versus urban settings, with the former expressing the view that perhaps community-building was really only a concern of the latter. For example, one respondent from a small town said "For one thing, (my town) is already a very tight-knit community. You meet people on the street you know every day. So perhaps we're not quite as conscious of (community building) as a value, because it's something we almost take for granted - that we have quite a strong community in that regard."

7.2 Political and Ideological Goals - Public space on the Net.

By and large, community networks are driven by purely ideological concerns as well as more pragmatic interests like community economic development. Many respondents noted that they had great concerns about control over information systems of the present and future. Such systems, whether they be known as cyberspace, the information highway, the NII (National Information Infrastructure) in the US or a number of other synonyms, are expected by most respondents to become the dominant mode of communications, culture and economy in the future. They are also expected to be controlled almost entirely by large corporations.

Although the Internet had its origins in academic research, in recent years it has become primarily privately owned. The US government privatized the NSF (National Science Foundation) network backbone that coordinated the US Internet in 1995, and the Canadian government appears likely to do the same to CA*net, the agency that controls much of Canada's Internet network. As a result certain large interests such as American giant MCI and Sprint, along with local telcos and the cable companies, are now fighting for supremacy over the primary communications conduit of the future.

Herbert Schiller notes that "Much of the (United States') physical space, outdoors and indoors, is now a private preserve, carrying the messages and culture of the corporations that dominate economic and political life. Their domain also extends to another kind of space-the (television and radio) airwaves." (Schiller, 1989, p. 106.) This type of economic domination of communications technology is, it can be argued, inherently undemocratic. In a paper dealing with public-access cable television Douglas Kellner argues that "To be revitalized and even survive, democracy requires the development of an open-access communications system." (Wasko and Mosco, 1992, p. 110.) Many respondents said that they were concerned that a similar form of corporate domination was occurring in the virtual world of computer-mediated communication.

In the early days of the Internet, and in keeping with the academic tradition of sharing information, most services on the Internet were available for free. People traded files, wrote free software, hosted all kinds of interesting services. But in recent years there have been massive efforts expended by private interests in an attempt to find ways of making money from this new technology.

So far much of the revenue generated has been largely speculative. New companies like Netscape, the producer of what is currently the world's most popular Web browser and Yahoo!, a comprehensive Web index set up by a pair of university students, burst onto Wall Street in December 1995 (Staten, 1995) and April 1996 (Aguilar, 1996) with absurdly huge initial public stock offerings. (IPOs) In fact, in a particularly postmodern twist, neither company had earned much actual money at the time of their IPOs - their income to that point was largely virtual, and their net worth was based more on speculative potential than anything else. Many information services have attempted to base themselves on advertising revenues, modelling their financial structure after broadcast television and print media paradigms, with mixed success.

Nevertheless the software companies' diligent work in setting up secure, encrypted, financial transaction technology in conjunction with credit card firms and other financial giants is leading the Internet more and more towards a kind of glorified electronic mall in which actual funds are transferred. For example Bill Gates, chair of American software giant Microsoft Inc., has written at length about what he calls "friction-free capitalism"; the use of digital networks to permit detailed information exchanges about products and also allow secure, encrypted, financial transactions. (Gates et al., 1995, p. 158.)

7.2.1 Concerns over growing corporate control of the nets.

This kind of heavy commercialization is of serious concern to many involved with community networks. Respondents spoke of "making sure there's public space on the information highway" and "we need community nets as a public voice." Garth Graham has written at great length about the importance of maintaining non-commercial community networks in the face of wide corporate control. He envisions community networks as being a kind of "electronic commons" or "an electronic public space where ordinary people can meet and converse about common concerns," a space that is "shared by all." He believes that it is very much in the public interest for community networks to attain such a position in order to achieve an "equitable and participatory" future society. (Graham, 1995.)

Closely related to these concerns over public space are concerns of local control and ownership. Just as most mass media interests are highly centralized, and most information content is controlled by conglomerates based in Toronto, New York, Los Angeles and London, so too are popular online services becoming centralized. The promise of the Internet, with its decentralized and user-controlled information services is not entirely gone, but many respondents said that they believed that the big businesses that control the mass media today would likely control the online world also. They felt that community networks offered a small chance for maintaining some kind of control over community information at a local level. One respondent said that "I always saw the Internet as a place where people should be able to get the word out and participate, rather than just passively reading. So for me it's always been important that the FreeNet have local material."

Additionally, as Kevin Wilson points out, increased corporate control over basic communications brings with it "commodification of communications." The technology "has fostered a progressive transformation of group work into an electronic activity with its own price tag." (Wilson, 1988, p. 136.) In other words, many forms of ordinary human communications conducted today without any financial transactions may become increasingly commodified as more and more human communication moves into an electronic - and thus billable - realm.

Most community networks self-consciously reject this type of commodification by making access to the system free or as low-cost as possible. Variants of the phrase "providing access for those who could not otherwise afford it" were frequently used by respondents.

7.3 National and international connections.

As mentioned earlier, one of the most extolled aspects of the online world is its apparent ability to conquer space. On the Net, physical geography matters little; network topology means all. There is a certain glamour surrounding the novelty of being able to access faraway Internet sites in an instant, but community networks nevertheless maintain a local focus. As Graham describes it, they express the local in the face of the global. (Graham, 1995.)

Some respondents expressed the hope that, paradoxically, community networks could offer some hope in maintaining local connections and local control through these global links. One respondent commented that:

One of the things that you're always at a disadvantage at if you're a citizens group is that city hall has got piles of resources. They can go out and do projects and have a lot of facts behind them. So community groups are always being dismissed as not knowing what they're talking about . . . Community groups don't have all that information, and they can't go out and do studies.

He thus paints a picture of small, loosely organized groups of people, working largely in the dark, unaware of what other community organizations around the region and across the nation are up to. But the ability to make long-distance connections through a community network offers great hope for improving this kind of grassroots communication between organizations. Environmental groups are doing this in limited ways, trading lessons learnt from localized battles with large interest groups.

7.4 Conclusion.

In summary, it appears that the building of local place-based community is generally not a major priority of the community networks studied. Respondents indicated that they were more interested in what can be characterized as more personal uses of the technology than communitarian uses of the technology. They also indicated that the promotion of publicly-controlled space on the nets was a more important goal than community-building. If this represents something of a tension between the local and the global in online systems, then it appears that providing access to the global is given priority over promoting the local.

This is not to say that an interest in local community is irrelevant for these community networks. Helping local non-profit community groups get online and promoting local special-interest groups can represent, to an extent, a focus on the local. But these activities were not cited as the primary aim of the organizations studied.

onward to Chapter Eight.