9.1 Future directions of community networks.

9.1.1 Internal consensus.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of community networks today is that their internal organizations are often characterized by a certain amount of disagreement over the future directions and goals of the organization. This is particularly ironic given that the networks are intended in part to promote harmonious discussions within the local community.

It is clearly impossible to expect that everyone in a non-profit organization is going to be in full agreement about everything. Indeed, a certain level of dissent adds a healthy tension to an organization. Additionally, there are going to be great differences in outlook and priority from one community network organization to another. What works well in one locale does not necessarily work well in another.

Nevertheless, I believe that the most critical task ahead for community networks today is developing some form of general consensus concerning their collective future. Given their limited resources, community networks cannot be everything for everyone. It is crucial that the general goals and priorities of each organization be articulated more clearly.

9.1.2 Community Needs.

Although a close examination of user wishes and needs is an integral part of any marketing exercise, it appears that community networks have not undertaken similar care to examine the needs of their users, the community. This is understandable, given the cost in resources of extensive surveys and the fact that community network systems are usually overloaded to capacity. But it is nevertheless an important question: who is being served, and how? One respondent commented:

When we realized that the World Wide Web was sprung upon everyone, and was where everything was happening, we did ask ourselves 'have we done our job? Do we need to be here anymore?' And the answer was 'yes-the people using us seem to think that we need to be here. We don't really know why they want us here, but they still seem to be using us heavily.'

The respondent added "We really don't know as much about our users as we would like to." The 1996 study by Patrick and Black (Patrick & Black, 1996c) of NCF users and their system usage patterns is a useful starting point, but I believe a great deal of future study could be done in this area.

9.1.3 Financial Costs.

There are significant financial costs involved in running a community network, and most respondents reported that user support alone was insufficient to cover those expenses. Government at all levels has not been forthcoming with continuing funding for community networks, and many organizations are finding that the initial flush of seed funding that they obtained in the early days is fading rapidly.

Many respondents reported that financial woes were one of their largest concerns in terms of their organization's future. Accordingly, community networks must work on developing sustainable funding models. Increased discussion among treasurers and fundraisers at community networks across the country may be an important part of this work. Each community network has its own fundraising model, largely dependent upon local circumstances, but the sharing of strategies and plans will likely be a useful step.

Many in the movement have pinned a great deal of hope on obtaining some form of government support for community networks. Unfortunately, to date that support has been thin gruel indeed. Community nets have often been the beneficiaries of small seed grants, but it does not appear likely that any ongoing support is forthcoming. Nor, given the current political climate in Canada, does it appear likely that any government will invest anything in developing community networks.

Corporate support is also scarce. Community networks, unlike traditional charities, are not particularly 'feel-good.' Unlike organizations that aim to eliminate a disease or achieve some other goal of obvious benefit to society, community networks are still seen as a province of the nerds rather than a precursor to a communications system as important as the telephone is to us today. Contemporary high technology corporations, unlike traditional patriarchal companies, also appear to be uninterested in reaching out to the wider community. Some community networks have benefited from small in-kind donations from high-tech firms, but these contributions are usually modest.

Community networks must develop ways of being as self-sustaining as possible without relying so much on external agencies. One respondent described this process as a necessary transition within the movement. "I think in the future we're going to have to make that transition from being young enthusiastic organizations to ones that have long-term sustainability. They have to be embraced by the public or else they're going to eventually die out." Another said that, "over the long haul the thing that will allow community networks to survive will be whether they've been able to convince enough people that they're necessary to equality in society - as public libraries are seen now."

9.1.4 Provision of Dialup.

Historically, community networks have placed a great deal of emphasis on the provision of dialup services so that all users, regardless of their income levels, can get online. Normally this has involved acquiring large banks of modems hooked up to dialup telephone lines.

Unfortunately, as noted earlier, telephone lines are extremely expensive. The pricing varies across the country, depending on the whims of the local telephone company, the local dialup price structure set by the CRTC and other circumstances, such as government subsidies. Nevertheless, phone line costs in Canada rarely fall below $40 per month per line, and can reach as high as almost $100 per month per line, including taxes. Given that a system requires a phone line for each user simultaneously online these costs add up extremely quickly.

This emphasis on access thus places an enormous financial burden on the organization. This is particularly the case since most users apparently do not feel compelled to contribute to the ongoing costs of the lines. One participant at the 1995 Telecommunities Canada conference in Victoria cynically commented that since their dialup lines were servicing home users able to afford a home computer and telephone line of their own, their network infrastructure was not so much geared towards the 'have-nots' as the 'don't-wanna-pays.' In addition, the great popularity of the community nets invariably leads to constant busy signals, which users find frustrating, and which also cast the organization in a rather poor light.

The immediate financial stresses of access provision aside, there are also troubling longer-term implications of a focus on access. First, the monthly costs of commercial ISPs are becoming relatively affordable. In most urban centres it is now possible to obtain a monthly Internet account from $15 to $20 per month, sometimes for unlimited (or at least generous amounts of) access time. Commercial providers are able to undercut the ongoing costs of community networks considerably. Even though community nets have the advantage of volunteer labour and often manage to acquire low-cost or even free Internet network access, commercial ISPs can benefit from economies of scale and can also make deals with telephone companies (within CRTC regulations) and the long-haul network carriers.

Focusing on access is thus a dangerous strategy for community networks. Doing so may mean that they run the risk of being seen by users as little more than cheap access to the Net; to the pipe. From this point of view a user who can afford to pay $20 a month for access through a commercial provider with no busy signals may feel that there is no reason to bother with the community service anymore. If this tendency becomes an exodus then the community network may soon find itself with a large pool of genuinely needy individuals who cannot afford commercial ISPs, but without the individuals with the means effectively to cross-subsidize other users.

There is also a technological danger in community networks building up large investments in telephone line equipment. If, as appears to be the case, ISDN or ADSL digital connection technology or cable modems that transmit data over normal cable television lines become popular, thanks to their ability to carry large amounts of information, (in technical terms both technologies offer much greater 'bandwidth' than modems and phone lines) then analogue phone line-based community nets may also find themselves in a technological backwater as the new technology does an end run around the old.

More important than these economic and technical issues is the concern that a focus on access provision could also lead to decreased energy spent on building up local information content. Distracted by the constant battles in providing access, community networks could be sowing the seeds of their own failure simply by failing to provide a discussion medium and content base that will ensure that longer-term relevancy to the community. One respondent said:

If you assume (community networks are) a service, and even more specifically, if you assume that that service is about providing access, I think you're missing the whole point.

Jay Weston (of Carleton University and the NCF) is the first person who stated it, and quite clearly . . . "The defence of electronic public space as a commons."

It's not that the community network provides a service to people. It's that the community network reflects, enhances the community as network and allows the community to connect itself in new and different ways. I don't define community networks in service provision terms at all.

9.1.5 Changing Technologies.

9.1.6 Local information content.

If access provision does not constitute the long-term future of community networks, then what does? The most common answer appears to lie in the provision of locally-relevant community information.

This can take on several forms. Perhaps the most basic involves encouraging local non-profit community organizations, from seniors' centres to advocacy groups to educational societies, to host information areas on a system. Commonly referred to as IPs, or information providers, these groups are typically given free access to put up whatever material they deem relevant and important. IP material ranges from basic contact information about various groups, to full-fledged online publications.

Encouraging such IPs serves a number of useful purposes. First, it allows struggling non-profits to promote their organizations in ways which they normally might not be able to afford. The provision of such local content is unlikely to be profitable, and thus will probably remain a niche market - if that - in the commercial field. Second, a large base of IP information helps ensure that the community network becomes an information destination for the local community; a place where people know they can go for local material. A community net that establishes itself as the first place that people turn to for community information is far more likely to survive than one which is simply a low-cost or free network pipe. Third, an IP content base also means that a large number of local groups with the same basic goals - helping the local community - are united on one system. There is thus the hope that local discussions and connections can be made, with the community network as the medium. And fourth, the community network can benefit from the presence of high-profile and trusted IPs by name association. A community group which advertises its community network home page is also indirectly advertising and promoting the community network as well.

Another common form of generating community information involves encouraging users of the system to form special interest groups, or SIGs. SIGs are areas on the system dedicated to specific topics of interest to the group's volunteer organizers-from gardening to science fiction to automotive repair. Although SIG organizers may put together a small related information base, such as a regularly maintained Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list, most SIGs focus on promoting online discussions rather than simply building up a static information base.

SIGs are frequently formed around specific topics of interest that might be considered somewhat trivial to outsiders. But this can be seen as part of their strength - that they reflect personal interests. One respondent remarked that:

(users in SIGs may have no idea who other SIG members are, but) they are validating each other's interests. So, in terms of well-being as human beings, they are legitimizing each other's interests and concerns. I think that's very valuable, and not trivial at all.

Another area of growing interest is that of personal Web pages, which are becoming more common on many community networks; particularly those based around World Wide Web standards. These are areas on the system in which an individual user can put up a page containing anything of interest to him or her. Such pages usually reflect the user's own personal interests and hobbies, and often become very personal indeed, containing pictures of weddings or family or pets.

While it might be easy to dismiss personal Web pages as little more than a brief fad and a way for introverts to play as extroverts, it should be noted that these pages also represent unfiltered personal expression. It may be true that the vast majority of personal Web pages can be seen as little more than pointless exercises in digital narcissism complete with photos of the family dog, but they are also an unprecedented opportunity for ordinary people to express themselves to a wide audience, without editors, filters or other hindrances. If the power of the press belongs to those that own them, then personal Web pages bring a little freedom of press to everyone by eliminating the normal layers of intermediation that are an integral aspect of most forms of information publishing.

Naturally, there are some dangers in this kind of informational freedom; many related to legal issues. To date Canadian law is a little unclear as to the responsibilities of a service provider in terms of monitoring systems for illegal system use. For instance, if a user were to post hate literature to a community network, who would be liable? And who would determine whether the material is constitutionally protected speech or actual hate? Similarly, sexually explicit material raises the issue of who should determine what can be published on a system and what cannot. Should children be permitted unrestricted access to the Internet via community networks? Or should file transfers be monitored to prevent the trafficking of pirated (illegally copied) software?

Nevertheless, many of these questions are likely to come about regardless of whether personal Web pages are permitted on community networks. Already Usenet news postings raise thorny legal, moral and ethical questions that are still largely unresolved.

For example, a subject of some concern at the 1995 Telecommunities Canada conference in Victoria was the fact that Canadian libel law holds a person who repeats a libelous statement as accountable as the person who made the original remark. This is a problem in the field of Usenet posts, because it is traditional for a person posting a follow-up post to quote a portion of the previous message in order to establish context. Would this mean that a follow-up post could be held as libel under Canadian law? And to what extent are community networks and their boards liable themselves for public statements published electronically by their users? The courts have yet to answer these questions, but they pose great concerns for small non-profit community networks, which could be economically destroyed by the costs of even a frivolous legal action.

9.1.7 Defining attainable goals.

The early 1990s were an exciting time for community networks. There was a tremendous deal of optimism and energy focused on the fledgling systems, and a great deal of hope expressed that they would be able to serve whole communities as central information bases. The early successes of organizations such as the NCF in Ottawa likely helped reinforce these views.

Unfortunately, as time has progressed there has also been increasingly the realization that community networks cannot hope to be all things to all people. The economic and technical challenges involved in building a networking infrastructure to serve every resident of anything other than a small community are massive. And community networks, despite their volunteer-driven enthusiasm, cannot hope to match the large budgets and driven organizational structures of large companies in terms of providing such an infrastructure. It has become increasingly clear that community nets must focus on a fairly manageable set of key attainable goals.

Andrew Patrick, of Ottawa's NCF, has spoken extensively of what he calls the 'soup kitchen' model for community networks. While unglamorous in nature, this model emphasizes that the access provision components of community networks should ideally be there to serve those without any other form of access. Community networks, in their present form at least, cannot hope to maintain the vast and growing communications infrastructures needed to serve all aspects of a population equally. The soup kitchen concept, by focusing on the basic needs of the information disenfranchised, deals with this problem by targeting a manageable number of individuals. In an online note he comments:

What I am suggesting, then, is that the NCF adopt a limited mandate. Our role should be to provide services to members of the community who cannot get online in other ways. We should provide the training, equipment, and connections that people cannot get somewhere else. Once people have the skills, equipment, or funds to get connected in other ways, then our role should stop. People should graduate from the FreeNet and move on, if they are able, to other more advanced services, just as people who no longer have the need stop eating their meals at the soup kitchen. (Patrick, 1995)

The question remains as to the kind of funding that might be available to support such systems. The model assumes a certain charity-oriented approach, which is problematic because Revenue Canada has systematically denied charitable tax status to community networks, as noted in the history of the Vancouver CommunityNet. Whether this situation will change, and if so to what extent, with the Vancouver court victory is unknown.

However a cynic might also note the way in which soup kitchens, originally viewed as temporary and interim measures, have become institutionalized in our society. And they have become institutionalized in a fashion that can be marginalizing. There is thus the concern that electronic soup kitchens, like their physical counterparts today, might end up forcing the underprivileged into a kind of electronic backwater. Organizers with the Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV) in Virginia, are quoted in one study as arguing that "If only underserved groups are targeted, they will not have the richer network access they would if they were involved in a broader-based community initiative. Targeting just underserved groups may not lead to the critical mass necessary to get the network operating." (Anderson, et al., 1995, appendix B.)

Additionally, there is the danger that community networks will lose whatever heterogeneous qualities they may now possess. Recasting community networks as services for the economically disadvantaged may achieve some goals, but reduce the likelihood of them becoming vibrant, pluralistic systems.

Even if community networks do not take the soup kitchen approach, it seems likely that as time passes there will be a certain refocusing of the scope of community nets' undertakings. The simple fact that significant ongoing funding - whether government or corporate or user-based - does not appear to be forthcoming seems likely to dictate that this will be the case.

One possible way of addressing this issue of limited resources might be viewing the community networks as a common meeting ground or starting point rather than as a destination. The early Cleveland Free-Net model emphasizes what is essentially a local bulletin-board system. Following this model, users dial in, enter through the front door and remain within the all-encompassing system for the duration of their session. In a real sense this is a centralized and hierarchical model.

By contrast, adoption of Web standards leads to a much more fluid and decentralized conception of information. Content can reside anywhere - and instead the pointers to that information, or the connections between nodes, become critical. This model is inherently less controllable and centralized. In a way, users no longer enter through the front door and proceed through the lobby - they could come in through the bathroom window or crawl in from the basement. In this context, community networks can serve as central index points for finding community information and local discussions. They thus move away from being the centralized controllers of information. The Vancouver CommunityNet, in part owing to its fairly limited local content base, has moved in this direction by providing a central CommunityPages Web index that lists pointers to other community sites.

It should be noted that while this model has the strength of distributing the load across a wide variety of systems and thus reducing the strain in individual community networks, it also means that community networks would have to work much harder to present a unified and well-defined role. It might be more difficult to maintain relevance in such a situation. One respondent remarked on this tension between the older bulletin-board style community network and Web-based systems by noting that:

Moving through that milieu (the Web) it's a "you as an individual" web of conceptualization. It's an individual basis rather than you collectively coming together in some sort of mental space.

9.1.8 Training.

One area that would seem to be ideally suited to the nature of community networks is that of user training. Personal computers, despite their status as consumer commodities, are still complex and difficult devices for most people to use. Despite a certain degree of effort on the part of computer manufacturers to address ease of use, computers are still nowhere near as simple to use as other consumer hardware, such as stereos, telephones and vcrs.

This is particularly problematic for older generations of Canadians, who will not have had early exposure to computers as children. Additionally the entrenchment of personal computers in middle class families also implies that the economically disadvantaged may also find themselves at a loss in terms of participating in a computer-oriented society.

Community nets, as volunteer-driven and not profit-oriented enterprises, hold a great deal of promise in this area. This they do by helping in a modest way to redress some of these imbalances in computer literacy. Many community networks hold introductory training sessions and courses to help familiarize new users with some of the arcane complexities of online communications. In addition to semi-formal training, community networks also serve as more general training grounds by encouraging users to help one another in getting used to the online way of doing things. This kind of social networking and peer training was cited by many respondents as being of great importance to their users.

9.1.9 An examination of the technical capacities and limitations of CMC in general.

Finally, I believe that further research into the sociological and community impacts of CMC technology is an important area that deserves further attention. Computer networking is being implemented extremely rapidly on a wide scale. Massive corporate interests, convinced that CMC will enable them to reap large profits, are investing billions in developing a sophisticated network infrastructure. But how will this new technology affect society?

As noted in the literature review, much of the research work in this area has focused largely on psychological responses of people to technology, rather than more sociological examinations. If we as a society are going to embrace this technology, as seems likely, a more detailed examination of some of the possibilities seems wise.

Sometimes wholesale adoption of a new technology has consequences unimaginable by its inventors. Alexander Graham Bell probably never realized the impact that the telephone would have on the design of Canadian cities or changes in the power structures of companies. Henry Ford probably never imagined how the automobile would result in a complete reshaping of urban and suburban development. Similarly, broadcast television is used primarily for highly commercialized and homogenized entertainment, and not for the educational and cultural goals that early writers anticipated. Community cable television in most areas is represented by little more than a token unwatched station that cable television stations reluctantly provide in order to meet regulatory requirements.

But I believe our future can be directed; it is not inevitable. If we take the time to look ahead before plunging blindly on we may be able to mitigate some of the possible drawbacks of computer-mediated communications.

9.2 The Niche of Community Networks.

9.2 Summary.