Report From Telecommunities'95 Conference
Jay Hauben
jrh29@columbia.edu
Something big is happening in the world. There is rapid
development and deployment of new technology making possible an
incredibly inexpensive global communications system. This is a
report about a grassroots effort across Canada that is attempting
to insure participation in the development and use of this
technology by community level people. The organization formed to
coordinate this Canadian community network movement is called
Telecommunities Canada.
In February, 1995, a conference announcement appeared on
electronic mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups. It began,
"Telecommunities Canada is pleased to extend an invitation to
Free and Community Networks across Canada and around the world to
attend the International Community Networking Conference and
First Annual General Meeting of Telecommunities Canada." The
announcement encouraged the widest possible attendance from
participants in Free-Nets, Community Networks and other forms of
electronic community based activities with the hope it would lead to
the founding of an International Telecommunities Organization to
encourage the development of community networking around the
world. It also pointed to their vision of ubiquitous access to
electronic communications for all Canadians by the year 2000.
The conference took place from Aug. 19 to 23, 1995 in Victoria,
British Columbia. Over 300 people attended the four days of
tutorials, speeches, concurrent sessions and a barbecue. Most of
the participants were Canadians, but also present were community
networking people from the U.S., England, Australia, and
other countries. Most of the more than 30 operating Canadian
community networks were represented as were many of the 70 or so
community networks that are in various stages of organization.
Since the first Canadian community network, Victoria Free-Net,
came online in November, 1992, over 200,000 Canadians or a little
less than 1% of the Canadian population has gained free or very
low cost access to the Net via such networks.
The conference sessions were for the most part serious and
many pressing issues were discussed and debated. This report cov-
ers a few.
All Canadian community networks are staffed mostly by volun-
teers, sometimes numbering in the hundreds. Most of the work of
figuring out, setting up and maintaining these networks is done
by volunteers from the communities or cities involved. In fact,
one of the major purposes of these community networks is to provide
training for local community people in electronic communications
technology and network management. In that way these communities
hope they might participate in the development of advanced
technology and their people could take jobs or participate in
decisions which require such technical knowledge. Many of the
students, people between jobs, librarians, and senior citizens who
volunteer, do so with this purpose in mind. But how to maintain a
sufficient pool of such volunteers was a question for many of the
community networks. There was wide-spread sentiment that the vol-
unteers had to be offered quality training and skill upgrade
opportunities, especially those with more skills offering help to
those with less. Also, some argued that care had to be taken
to involve volunteers in all aspects of the network's decisions and
operations both for the network's health and for retention of the
volunteers. From what I heard at the conference, it seemed that
concern for retaining volunteers would strengthen some community
networks in their resolve not to allow any commercial activity on
their networks lest the volunteers see that someone was profiting
from their donated labor.
Even with most labor done by volunteers and most equipment
donated as it was for some of the community networks, there are
still ongoing costs to operate a community network. There was
general experience throughout Canada that the actual operating
cost amounts to about $8.00(U.S.) per member per year (mostly for
phone line costs). Even that small cost per member, for a commu-
nity net like National Capital Free-Net in Ottawa with over
50,000 members necessitates an annual budget of over $400,000.
Participants from the Blue Sky Community Network of Manitoba
pointed out that $8.00 per year amounts to about 70 cents per
month and therefore should be covered by the government which
would save that much money just by making one less paper mailing
per month to each online citizen. People from Edmonton Free-Net
argued that it would not be unfair to charge each member a $10 to
$20 annual membership fee as they do. Many others argued that
even $10 per year might be a burden for some and that there
should be no economic obstacle to anyone participating. Most
Canadian community networks retain free access, covering their
operating costs by voluntary donations from their users and other
fund raising mechanisms. But the money question and the question
of being sustainable seemed on everyone's agenda.
Speaking to the principles on which to base the money and
other decisions, Garth Graham one of the theoreticians of the
Canadian community network movement has written: "A community
network is electronic public space where ordinary people can meet
and converse about common concerns. Like parks, civic squares,
sidewalks, wilderness, and the sea, it's an electronic commons
shared by all, not a cyberspace shopping mall." To maintain their
value as a public space, Canadian community networks have rules
that their members and users agree to and can lose their accounts
if they violate. Among the rules presented at the conference was
an acceptable use policy in effect at some of the networks
permitting: No corporate accounts, No advertising, and No overt
buying and selling. Other nets represented at the conference have
made openings for commercial use of their networks by establishing
paid for higher levels of membership or sponsorship. But many
worried that such duel level membership would compromise the
public community essence of their networks.
One disappointment for the conferees was the failure to form
an international organization or put in motion steps in that
direction. The Canadian community network movement acknowledges its
indebtedness to and respect for Cleveland Free-Net and there had
been strong efforts made to connect the Canadian community network
and U. S. Free-Net movements. Telecommunities Canada had hoped to work
closely with the U.S. National Public Telecommunications Network,
known as the NPTN, which had up until recently represented many
of the U.S. Free-Nets. During the conference, as an American I was
asked often if I had worked with the NPTN. I explained the problems
I had encountered with the NPTN. The Canadians listened politely
but only at the end of the conference did I learn that the NPTN
had trademarked the name Free-Net in Canada. The NPTN made it a
condition of its participation in the conference that each Canadian
community network pay the NPTN a $2000 membership fee. Tele-
communities Canada offered to make a token payment in the name
of all the Canadian community networks but the NPTN maintained
that Canadian Free-Nets were using their trademark illegally
and the negotiations toward an international organization ended.
The result has been that a number of Canadian community networks
have taken Free-Net out of their names while others have offered
each other legal support if the NPTN were to sue any of them over
its use of the name Free-Net. Many people at the conference warmly
welcomed me and asked what they could do to help people in the U. S.
move closer to having more community networks. It was as if the
presence of non-Canadians helped keep the hope of an international
organization alive.
Local content was presented by many as an important aspect
of community networks. But it was reported that most users log-on
in order to use e-mail or Usenet. This contradiction raised the
question of what was the proper role for a community network.
Garth Graham quoting another community network theoretician Jay
Weston, phrased it this way: Are community networks "providing
something for the community or caretakers of a space created by
the community?" He argued at the conference that if community
networks saw their role as providing something for the community,
they had not gotten "beyond industrial society models of how to
structure organizations" and therefore did not represent anything
new and would soon be replaced by commercial service providers.
If on the other hand they adopted the role of safeguarding a
public space then community networks would be doing something unique
and important. Community people need community networks to defend
their right to access to the new communications technology at its
actual cost. Jay Weston writes: "The National Capital Free-Net
was an imagined public space, a dumb platform where all individuals,
groups and organizations could represent themselves, where conflict
and controversy could occur as manifestations of conflict and
controversy already occurring in the community.... Such
a space could be constructed only by the community acting as a
community, and not by any public or private organization acting
on behalf of the community." His argument is that the community
must decide what is best for it. But who in the community has the
answer? Everyone with a genuine interest in the community must
be heard in order to figure that out. An open and diverse elec-
tronic public space is needed for that debate and discussion and
that is what Usenet especially and e-mail allow for. I feel many
people at the conference did not fully understand the important
role that community networks play by making Usenet and e-mail
available to their users.
In Canada as opposed to the U. S., there are stated policies
of encouragement of community networks on the part of the Federal
and some of the provincial governments. For example, the British
Columbia Provincial government in a document called "The
Electronic Highway Accord" states: "Community networks and public
points of access are fundamental to affordable electronic access
to services and broad community participation in the information
society. A continuing commitment to involving the public in
developing the electronic highway is essential." It is recognized
in Canada that the private sector will not provide universal
access at no or low cost to all Canadians. But most community
network activists were frustrated by how little financial support
had come so far from Canadian governments. The attendees at the
conference took up an active debate with the government officials
who had been sent to the conference. In most instances the gov-
ernment programs prescribe the form that a network should take in
order to qualify for funding. The grassroots people fought to
have a say in the whole process of defining, structuring, and
deciding which projects would get government support. The Canadian
Federal government has earmarked $20,000,000 over three years for
rural connectivity to the Internet. Even those at the conference
ready to give up on achieving government financial support, took
up to argue with the government representatives why much of that
money should end up supporting the community networking movement
and not business connectivity. The effort was to make the
government live up to its mandate as the promoter of the general
welfare rather than the provider of welfare for business interests.
The end result at the conference was that the Federal government
representatives asked the Telecommunities Canada organization
to put a proposal on the table for the government to consider.
Whereas government support was hard to make concrete, libraries
and librarians have played prominent parts in the community networks
that have come online in Canada. Many of the community network
efforts were initiated by librarians or library administrators.
People whose profession was to facilitate access to information
saw the advent of the Internet as a great leap forward and didn't want
their local library users nor themselves left out. Also librarians
realizing that they need network skills are among the volunteers in
many community networks. Some library administrators also served
as activists in the development of local community networks. A
community network can be a mechanism by which a library's online
catalog is available by dialup from homes without requiring the
library itself to maintain the modem pool and computers that are
necessary. Also, many community networks fulfill their obligation
to have public access terminals by placing them in libraries. So
a community network can save libraries a good deal of training
effort, money and equipment costs and in Canada at least many
community networks and libraries are close partners.
In most communities, libraries do not consider community
networks competitors but relations in Canada between community
networks and commercial service providers are a problem. The
community network activists do not see themselves as competitive
with the service providers. They argued that the community
networks with their basic capabilities help to create customers for
the commercial operations, introducing people to networking and
whetting the appetites of those who will be willing to pay for
higher level access. The service providers for their part often
oppose the community networks as unfair competition. There are
some service providers who have appeared helpful to the community
networks in their areas. Some conference attendees warned, however
that what appears as friendship in public is often the opposite
behind closed doors. Also Rogers cable company in Toronto is a
major sponsor of the Toronto Free-Net, but the finances and
decision process there I was told were not public in contrast to
the normal practice in most other Canadian community networks.
When I asked people at the conference what advice they would give
to people who wanted to see a community network develop, I was
often told to look into who had a successful community network,
"Check out why National Capital Free-Net in Ottawa is successful."
What I heard about National Capital Free-Net was that there had
been a year long planning effort spearheaded by some faculty
members from Carleton University who held meetings frequently
for more than a year before launching their community network.
That all decisions of importance are made in public with votes
taken online on the Free-Net and that the annual meeting
setting policy for the coming year is also online available to
all and participated in by many.
I left the conference feeling that I had attended an impor-
tant event. It was a public conference that had discussed many
issues important to the successful operation of a community net-
work. There were many differences among the Canadians but for now
it seemed to me they had a genuine community network movement
committed to safeguarding a public space. I felt we in the U.S.
have a very big job if we too want to have the kind of universal
free or very low cost access that the Canadians were aiming for.
We here have yet to win government commitment to a role in support
of public participation in spreading access to the Internet. We
have strong commercial interests which oppose any public sector
activity, and we haven't even gained the kind of support from
libraries and librarians that seemed so important in Canada. But I
felt there were pioneers at work in Canada blazing the trail and
wishing us well and they had given us a push to keep going
despite or in spite of the difficulties.
----
[Author's Note: Telecommunities Canada will hold its 1996 conference
in Edmonton, Alberta on August 16-20. More information is available
from: tc96info@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reprinted from Amateur Computerist Vol 7 no 1. Free from jrh@umcc.umich.edu
___________________________________________________________________________