The community network provides a "social space" for the community, a place where community members can interact with each other, a place to learn, discuss, persuade, or just have fun. The community network is also a community institution, an organization that is supported by the community, helps support the community, and is situated within the community. The community network organization provides the framework and the institutionalization that helps create, administer, and promote continuing development of the community network. Both the community-network system and the community-network organization exist within a social and political context that helps shape the community-network system and organization and, in turn, is shaped by them.

We have attempted to show the social relationships (including political and economic) that influence a community network in Fig. 8.1. The figure shows major types of "players" that help determine the shape, direction, and philosophy that individual community networks might take, as well as the community-network movement as a whole. This figure is a very broad characterization of the social and political model, and developers in local communities must take the specifics of their local environment into account when building and maintaining a community network. The model includes (1) individual and organizational participants, (2) nonparticipants, (3) other community networks (including BBSs), (4) influencing organizations, (5) infrastructure providers and other commercial service providers; and (6) the community network itself. We'll discuss each one in turn, starting with the community network.

At the center of the model is the community network. The community network must be an integral part of the larger community — not autonomous and isolated — if the community network is to be truly a community network. Nestled within the community-network box are its essential attributes, including the on-line community, the community-network services, the community-network organization, and the information-usage policy that guides it.

The on-line community is the group of people who participate in the community network by offering their opinions, by reading those of others, and by using and providing information and services. The on-line community is at the center of the social and political architecture. If this community is inactive or dysfunctional, the entire community network is deficient.

There is a growing body of literature on the sociology of cyberspace (Kollock and Smith, 1994) that reflects the growing number of participants and the emerging diversity of forms of on-line communication. Although much of this is relevant and should be studied by developers, we will not include an extended discussion here, but instead turn to the concept of community network "citizenship." This concept helps define the responsibility that individuals should have for the on-line community and the responsibility that the on-line community should have for individuals. The community that is made possible by a community network is in actuality a multitude of smaller communities, each with an individual style and level of intimacy and purpose, much as a geographical community is comprised of neighborhoods, families, and associations, each with their own distinct characteristics.

Forums and e-mail distribution lists can support information sharing solely. They can be used to share feelings or opinions through conversation, or they can be used to accomplish specific tasks — planning a conference, or writing a proposal, for example. Shared purpose is an important way of unifying electronic communities. Confusion over the purpose of a mailing list or a forum is a common situation and can result in a disjointed electronic conversation, as can happen in a more traditional conversation in which participants have diverse expectations.

While passive participation ("lurking" ) will take place in all types of forums, it is far less disturbing than the aggressive antisocial behavior that seems to crop up all too frequently in electronic forums. Unfortunately, there are endless variations of these behaviors, varying from simple sarcasm to violent and sexual threats to "virtual rapes" (Dibbell, 1993). While a single person can fairly easily turn a pleasant (nonvirtual) social scene into an unpleasant one through loudness, vulgarity, or threatening behavior, the electronic venue seems exceedingly vulnerable to many types of abuse, probably because of the fact that people are not interacting face-to-face.

Mike Godwin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation is concerned that new cyberspace visitors will be "left wholly alienated, isolated, without any sense of belonging" if there is inadequate planning and there is no "deliberate architectural vision" in mind when creating new systems (Godwin, 1994). With that in mind, he offers nine principles for virtual communities (Fig. 8.2). These principles play a role in but are not identical to those needed for community networks (which are designed around geographical communities).

Although I'd suggest additional features such as the need to meet in person (in addition to virtual meetings) and the need for discussion modelling (discussed below), Godwin's principles are worth considering, especially as they compare and contrast with other principles sketched out in this book that are designed to support geographical communities. Note particularly Godwin's front-loading suggestion: Too often people feel that putting up the standard fare on the community network is sufficient. There is a vast number of other activities competing for people's time and attention and providing excitement and diversity in the community-network offerings is critical.

Community-network organizers and volunteers need to think competitively in terms of market share, for example, to create a compelling culture by providing lively forums and esoteric information not readily found elsewhere.

Godwin's last point — confronting the users with a crisis — suggests that fabricating controversy (right here in CyberCity!) is acceptable. While beating the drum capriciously to whip up interest in the system is not acceptable, confronting and grappling with legitimate crises is fine. In Seattle, for example, Seattle Community Network users from all locations in the political galaxy rallied against a "mini Exon/Gorton" bill in Washington State that would have paralyzed Washington's community networks with unrealistic and unconstitutional restrictions and fines. Rheingold's book (1993) offers instructive anecdotes on how virtual communities on the WELL used electronic networking to deal with emergencies such as life-threatening diseases or natural disasters while incidentally strengthening their sense of community.

UCLA researchers Peter Kollock and Marc Smith have been concentrating on the problems and guidelines for managing the new "virtual commons" and have raised intriguing issues for community-network developers. The virtual commons, according to Kollock and Smith has many features that are shared with other commons, especially the temptation for individuals to behave selfishly, partaking of the results of others' benevolence without adding anything to the community assets in any way. They've researched the concept of cooperation in a virtual environment primarily by studying behavior and norms in Usenet newsgroup electronic forums.

In their analysis Kollock and Smith list seven design principles uncovered by researcher Elinor Ostrom who has studied a wide range of communities that have succesfully developed and maintained "collective goods" (Ostrom, 1990). Although not conclusive, these principles (shown in Fig. 8.3) could prove useful in setting up and maintaining new community commons, both virtual and actual. Many of these principles will be best addressed through a combination of democratic principles and clear policies that follow these guidelines. (The SCN policy, for example, clearly addresses the sixth and seventh points by specifying a range of penalties and for establishing a low-cost procedure for dealing with conflicts that arise on SCN.)

There are many ways to make the same point as the Franklin quote above indicates, and a message that follows the guidelines of the prevailing culture is more likely to persuade than one that doesn't.

Although rarely used in practice, software could, in theory, prevent some types of antisocial postings, such as messages that were too long or messages that were going to too many recipients. This type of software protection could have prevented the recent incident in which a religious enthusiast dispatched his apocalyptic warning to over one hundred Usenet newsgroups on a single day. Current technology would not prevent this person from electronic proselytizing in this way on a daily if not hourly basis.

A more common phenomenon is that of a frequent poster dominating a discussion: "The one who posts the most wins."Suppose Jane works fifty hours a week as a nurse and barely has time to check in on her favorite discussions once every couple of weeks. John, on the other hand, does not have a job and apparently does not have a life outside of posting to forums. Obviously, John can more easily influence others—all other things being equal—than can Jane, who barely has time to read and post at all. System-imposed limitations on size, number, and frequency of postings could be employed to dampen this brand of built-in bias. An artificially low limit could, on the other hand, act against people who are less succinct in their postings, or have more ideas, or who provide more detailed analysis. People with less popular ideas would also need latitude to adequately defend their position. In those situations, posting limits would act as an electronic "gag rule,"preventing a person from exercising the right to speak.

Realistically, there are times when time limits or other restrictions must be imposed on discussion in the non-cyberworld. This is particularly important in decision-making bodies, which are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10. Clearly there is a need to strike a balance between unlimited freedom and overly restrictive constraints when designing and evaluating computer-mediated discussions.

Administrators need to have authority to warn, then later to suspend or ban a user from the system. Some possible abuses include sending e-mail to a person who has requested that he or she not receive e-mail from that person. Other offenses may include some malicious use like broadcasting to all users ("spamming") or sending chain letters. Advertising or using the system for financial gain could also be inappropriate in some cases. Using the system to gain illegal access to other machines needs also to be expressly prohibited.

Much has been written about proper on-line interactions or "netiquette," but Henry Sedgwick's seven rules on the art of conversation written in 1930 (Fig. 8.4) may be the most timely and succinct (Sedgwick, 1930; Oldenberg, 1991).

Although services on the community network will vary to reflect the needs, interests, and assets of particular communities, the services need to support all six community core values. A set of core services derived from the core values for a generic community network is shown in Fig. 8.5. This set is not an exhaustive list, but it is representative of the types of needed services, and could be useful in identifying potential organizational participants as well as for determining locations for public access terminals.

At its basic level, all information on a computer looks the same — a parade of bits, each holding the value of one or zero, in patterns no human eye can discern. Viewed from higher levels, however, the bits become information. And information is an important, highly scrutinized, and valuable commodity indeed.

Information policy determines the "rules of the road" for what information can be conveyed, by whom, and to whom, and under what conditions. The information policy will also cover what happens to an alleged or actual transgressor and specify who's liable in illegal communications. Unfortunately, the legal frontier in many areas has not been settled, and costly duels are being waged with lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, leaving community-network participants and organizers in uncertain territory. The community-network movement (like the BBS community) is singularly underfunded and underorganized among the players weighing into the networked arena.

A community network's policy statement is the explicit attempt to formulate the guidelines by which the principles or goals are addressed. It can set up conditions under which an effective on-line society can grow, promoting successful use of the system to meet the needs of the new community. The policy statement also establishes the rules — or procedures — that will be followed when problems arise involving the use of the system.

A sound information policy is critical to a community network, for it must address the wide range of issues that undoubtedly will arise. An information policy must anticipate and address questions and issues like the following:

• How private is my e-mail?
• Can I be denied access to the community network?
• Can I post "adult" material?
• Do I have to use my real name?
• How can I register a complaint against a moderator?
• I'm receiving abusive e-mail. Can you put an end to it?
• I'd like to use the network to advertise my product. Is that OK?
• I have a commercial database service. Can you let your users access it?
• The doctor in your question and answer forum gave me bad advice. I'm suing you!
• Someone reprinted my posting in a magazine without my permission! What should I do?
• Somebody on your network posted stolen credit card numbers (or indecent material). We're confiscating your equipment (and sending you to jail). Please excuse the inconvenience ...

These types of issues reflect in large part the tension that exists between individual and community rights. This conflict isn't unique to community networks, but since these networks are a new medium, many of the related issues are currently unresolved.

Privacy on the network is an important, yet not widely considered, aspect of community networks. Since the electronic media exacerbates many concerns over privacy, it is vitally important to consider these issues in the design of the system—not as an afterthought. The most important aspect of privacy probably has to do with e-mail. It is important that the contents of any private e-mail remain as private as the system administrators can possibly ensure. Just as telephones can be tapped, there are ways that computer-network communication can be intercepted with no indication to sender or recipient that the message has been inspected. For this reason, privacy cannot be totally guaranteed, but the system's administrators must consciously and conscientiously strive to ensure a high degree of privacy. Besides the contents of e-mail, all peripheral information must be kept secure. This certainly includes registration data, which could include address, phone numbers, and other information that the registrant regards as private. If it is necessary to collect other peripheral information such as records of to whom a user sent e-mail, from whom a user received e-mail, what forums he or she visited, and what files were downloaded by the user, then this information should be deleted regularly and subject to the same high standards of privacy as e-mail, private files, and user records.

It is not difficult to imagine ways in which electronic records could be used in ways that the user did not envision, intend, or expect, for legal, economic, or political reasons. Law enforcement officials and others, for example, sometimes attempt to find out what books people have checked out from the public library, while telephone companies have expressed the desire to sell telephone-call records to clients to aid in their marketing activities.

Although circumstances will undoubtedly vary from community to community and from system to system, the "Code of Fair Information Practices" (Fig. 8.6) adopted by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1973 offers a very good set of principles that can serve as a framework for privacy considerations of community networks (as well as other electronic systems may contain records on individuals). The code, based on five principles, contains simple and straightforward suggestions for protecting privacy.

Figure 8.6

Computer systems don't know whether a user's identity is real or manufactured. But the value of knowing or not knowing the true identity of a user varies according to context. User anonymity is important, for example, when users ask sensitive questions about sexually transmitted diseases in an on-line forum or submit such questions on-line to a doctor or nurse who's volunteered to field such questions. On the other hand, delivering anonymous e-mail is not the main responsibility of a community network. It should not necessarily be trivial for people to send anonymous threatening letters to the president, their neighbor, or anybody else that's reachable via e-mail.

In addition to the policy statement (see Appendix D), the Seattle Community Network has a netiquette (a portmanteau word from "network etiquette") guide to help promote good cyberspace citizenry among network users. Since the electronic medium is new, the use conventions are not established and there is a tendency for some people to use it in ways that seem rude to others. While the U.S. Constitution doesn't exclude rude speech as a protected form of speech, it's clear that many people would rather not receive sarcastic, insulting, insinuating, lewd, obscene, violent, or accusatory messages from other users.

The SCN "Netiquette Guide," is an attempt to anticipate these potential problems with the hope of preventing them from occurring in some cases and dealing with them effectively in other cases. Although the vast majority of people do want to be civil and realize that civil arguments are more likely to influence than uncivil ones, there are those people who will not and cannot be civil. Since it doesn't take too many of these people to spoil an electronic commons, we need to develop methods that will preserve civility without stifling free speech or introducing arbitrary and parochial restrictions.

Figure 8.7

In addition to its overall policy statement, the Seattle Community Network uses a code of ethics (Fig. 8.7) based on a similar document from the Victoria Free-Net organization. Forum moderators must also make their policies explicit. When situations arise, the moderator, community-network user and community-network administrators all have rights and responsibilities that should be well-defined and well-known. Although Mike Godwin (1994) would presumably disagree, the moderator should be able to censor postings for length, relevance, or unnecessary accusations and personal attacks. On the other hand, a user should be able to appeal a moderator's decision. The system administration should also be protected legally from controversies that erupt on their system much as the telephone company is not held liable for activities—legal and otherwise—that are accomplished or planned using the telephone system.

What are the appropriate responses to uncivil behavior? There is a fairly wide range of responses — some are informal, while others are more legalistic and formal; some are social, while others are technological. All have analogs in the "real world."

One response is to send a message back to the sender asking him or her to desist. This can be done in a private note — or via "cc" ("carbon copies" or duplicate messages) to a group of people. Sometimes the group "outing" approach backfires and the "offender" will redouble his or her efforts. Another approach is not to "take the bait"; ignoring unfounded accusations, attacks, and the like may be most successful. The offender often becomes bored and may seek other targets. If a user gets unwanted personal mail from somebody, he or she can ask the person not to send them any more personal mail. If the sender persists in sending them messages, this can be grounds for that person's temporary or permanent removal from the system. On a more unilateral level, the user can set up a "bozo filter" or "kill filter" that intercepts any e-mail or forum posting from any sender who is listed in the filter, effectively removing it before it can appear in the user's incoming mail or forum queue.

There are slightly different considerations in a moderated forum. The moderator can reject a posting if it doesn't pass the criteria established by the moderator — for example, if it is off the subject, too lengthy, if there are too many postings per day, or if it contains ad hominem attacks. Note that these criteria need to be explicit and as unambiguous as possible. The moderator can't reject a posting because he or she doesn't like the poster or doesn't agree with the posted argument. The posting can't be rejected because the poster doesn't meet some criteria — height, weight, race, religion, gender, IQ, and so forth. The poster also must have the right to appeal if he or she feels that the postings are being excluded unfairly. The SCN policy statement explicitly describes an appeal process for this eventuality.

Of course there would be no on-line community without contributors. The people and organizations that add information, opinions, issues, and questions to the system while noting what others have added are the life blood of the system. These contributors can best be thought of as belonging to one of two categories — individuals (who may assume the role of forum moderators as well) or organizational contributors.

As in a geographical community, people who participate in a community network do so for a variety of reasons. Some will use the system to find information, while others want to find conversation. Some will use the system to communicate on a one-to-one basis, others will be interested in forums — as active participants or passive "lurkers" — while others will want to assume even more active public roles in the on-line culture.

People who assume the responsibility for running an on-line forum are called "moderators."A moderator generally has strong interest, experience, or knowledge in a particular topic and wants to communicate with others on that topic. A moderator of a forum is like the host of a party, but how strenuously this role is assumed varies widely from moderator to moderator just as it does among party hosts. A moderator can also be seen as a discussion facilitator. If this role is assumed, it becomes a moderator's responsibility for ensuring that lively conversation occurs and that the conversation keeps on track if, indeed, keeping on track is important. While some types of forums—question and answer forums, for example—are less likely to be troubled, others may boil over with controversy and a moderator may need to wield some of the power of the role. If postings are too long or too numerous or if they contravene other established guidelines by being irrelevant, abusive, or libelous, the moderator is obliged to prune or excise the posting. As mentioned previously, guidelines should be established so that the moderator does not act capriciously or is viewed as acting capriciously. Since this area is among the most potentially hazardous realms for community-network developers and participants, these guidelines are critical.

John Coate, described by Howard Rheingold (1993) as the erstwhile "innkeeper, bartender, bouncer, matchmaker, mediator, and community-maker for the WELL" (the "Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link"), an on-line system run by the Whole Earth Catalog people, compares an on-line system to an inn (Coate, 1992). While staying at an inn, people converse with people they know and with people they encounter by chance. To Coate, facilitating an on-line community is like innkeeping; that is, the innkeeper encourages interchange between patrons but sometimes problems arise and order has to be restored.

Many community organizations are interested in exploring opportunities offered by community networks. These opportunities range from e-mail use to large programs that use network facilities extensively. The League of Women Voters, for example, could distribute electronically some of the vast amount of information they collect on issues and candidates. They could also devise more ambitious projects as well, such as "electronic townhalls" in which citizens could question candidates directly on issues.

Virtually all organizations have information that they'd like to distribute electronically. Initially this effort may duplicate what they already distribute on paper: newsletters, briefing papers, and contact information, for example. Lack of resources or technical expertise may inhibit their desire to participate in a community network, although the promise of increased visibility in their community, reduced communication costs, and the desire to "modernize" their operations often helps to overcome these obstacles. Furthermore, organizations that are thinking about making their information or services available electronically may reduce their costs considerably by foregoing the development of an independent BBS system that they would have to purchase and maintain themselves. Using an existing community-network system also makes it easier for potential clients to use by providing a common access point — the "one-stop shopping" advantage.

A few of the possible organizational participants are listed in Fig. 8.8. All community organizations might feel the need to participate and none should be excluded. While some organizations may have exclusionary, undemocratic, or anticommunity principles, there is no valid reason for preventing them from using the system. As a matter of fact, denying them access to the system would be seen—justifiably—as exclusionary. While organizations should not be denied the right to participate, it is possible to argue that some types of electronic postings should be barred because of the content of the posting, such as the nature of an event being advertised. An analogous situation exists within the public library in regard to their meeting-rooms policy and their public-notices policy. A group is barred from using the facilities of the public library for meetings that deny participation on the basis of age, race, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. The public library also permits the posting of announcements for events that have no admission charge and are open to all. Whether or not policies like this are adopted for public postings (in forums, and so on) these restrictions would not apply to private e-mail correspondence.

An "information provider" (IP) is defined as an individual or organization that uses the network to post information electronically or to convene on-line forums. An organization with whom the community-network organization has entered into a strategic alliance can be called a "partner." Somewhere between "information providing" and "strategic alliances" (discussed in Chapter 10), lies a myriad of possibilities for cooperative projects between organizational participants and the community-network organization. These projects are generally less formal than strategic alliances, but they may require written agreements, as money, staff time, or other important resources may be involved.

A cooperative project is an endeavor that reflects the character and objectives of all participating groups and frequently will depend on the terms of specific project proposals. Some cooperative projects have included: placing terminals at organizational offices; obtaining, formatting, and distributing information of special interest; connecting particular BBSs, databases, or other systems to community networks; bringing in telephone lines to additional sites; producing printed materials; providing specialized training; developing new software; and enhancing the existing community-network software.

In addition to traditional community groups, like the YMCA, community centers, and the Camp Fire Girls that are evolving to meet changing needs in the community, there are scores of new organizations and informal groups, alliances, and coalitions of more recent vintage. These newer groups — described in more detail in the civic renaissance section of Chapter 11 — are also worthy of attention. In many cases, these newer groups may be more politically aggressive, better tuned to the era, and more participatory. In other words, the values of these newer groups may be more consonant with the values of the new community and are likely to become valued partners in the development of community networks along with the more established groups.

Currently the largest group of players in the social architecture that encompasses the community-network universe doesn't even play. This is the large group of "nonusers" whose presence as a potential voice in the discussion of future technology is largely nonexistent. Users of electronic information and communication systems tend to be white, middle-class males between the ages of 20 and 50. They tend to be employed, have greater than average incomes, speak English, and have few disabilities. As the list in Fig. 8.9 indicates, there are large numbers of people that fall outside these categories. If community-network developers are serious about making systems that are used by a broad spectrum of people and provide genuine community benefit, then understanding the reasons why current systems aren't used is essential.

Fortunately, there are many cooperative approaches that can strengthen community-network organizations while keeping community concerns uppermost. One approach is to provide reciprocal access to each others' machines. This means that the user would need to memorize one less phone number and make one less telephone call. Community networks could also cooperate on a registration system that would give users accounts on both machines, while going through one process. In a similar vein, it would be useful to provide e-mail access from both systems. Although this could result in more accounting and policy work, the benefits to the community are significant. With BBS systems, it makes sense for a larger community-network system to act as an e-mail gateway between the BBS and the Internet. The BBS system and the community network could also arrange for certain newsgroups and forums to be shared or "echoed," just like the Usenet community does with its newsgroups.

While it is technologically feasible to maintain the facade of a single community network by connecting multiple smaller systems together, this approach may also have its drawbacks. One danger is that the individual components of a "mega-network" might lose their individual identities. Without a discernible identity it might be difficult to find the necessary funding. And a community network with no discernible identity might offer no coherent theme or approach to the community. Additionally, a distinct identity may be irrelevant or overwhelmed if one of the network components is much larger and more conspicuous than the others.

Ultimately, many of these concerns boil down to questions of "turf": Who has the right and the responsibility to run what parts of what systems? And, furthermore, who is recompensed for their efforts and through what mechanism? Government, for example, should have the responsibility to provide government information, and information-referral agencies (such as crisis clinics and suicide-prevention hotlines) should probably retain their responsibility. While the government has the responsibility to engage the citizenry on current civic issues, should it have sole responsibility for running civic forums? Probably not. Moreover, there may not be global answers to these questions. One community may want government to provide a service and be willing to pay for it, while another community may rely on a nongovernmental organization for the same services.

There are many other ways in which geographically-based community networks can cooperate. At a minimum, it should be possible to send e-mail between them, over the Internet or via a variety of lower-tech ways, and community networks should be able to share forums that cross geographical lines. Community networks could share principles, policies — even user interfaces — and they could collaborate on fundraising and information-sharing on how best to run a system. It will probably be necessary to negotiate roles and responsibilities (based on new definitions of "turf") for improved cooperation to take root. An important form of collaboration could come from citizens who gain an increased understanding of people in adjoining communities and who work on projects for the benefit of both communities.

As time progresses and network usage becomes more widespread, one thing is quite clear. If access to e-mail and other network services is to become universal, joint planning, and cooperative ventures between many types of organizations — public, private, and nonprofit — will be required.

A wide range of organizations influence community-network development and coordination. These include government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit companies. Advocacy groups, including library and educational groups as well as nonprofit groups such as the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), the Morino Institute, the Center for Civic Networking (CNN), and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), are also strongly involved and have produced influential documents and reports (CPSR, 1993; CCN, 1993; Morino, 1994 and 1995). Other organizations offer competitive services, including telephone companies, cable television companies, and various other media and communication companies. These companies are well-positioned to address community needs, but have not prioritized it because of the perceived lack of strong financial return on investment.

The government's historical and current influence as well as its potential for future involvement, in its roles as both supporter and regulator, is very strong. Historically, the U.S. government is responsible for the existence of the Internet, and the tab for both the necessary research and the implementation has been picked up by U.S. taxpayers. More recently, the government, through then Senator (now Vice President) Gore's NREN (National Research and Educational Network) legislation, effectively subsidized the ubiquitous and free Internet connections that many university students enjoy.

In recent years, there has been an astounding amount of federal government information made available electronically, from impending legislation in the House of Representatives (via Thomas) to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reports (via Fedworld) to Supreme Court decisions (via Juris). While much of this was done voluntarily, sustained political pressure by people like Jamie Love of the Taxpayer's Assets Project and entrepreneur Jim Warren has helped to make federal and state government information easily available electronically and to end commercial strangleholds on some government information (Love, 1995).

There has also been a great deal of activity at state, county, and municipal levels of government as well. Many elected officials are getting on the Net with an e-mail address, some on their own, using a commercial account or a community network and an increasing number on government-sponsored systems. Nearly all state governments and a large number of county and city governments have recently put information up on the World Wide Web. Some states are developing ambitious public computer systems such as Maryland's Sailor Project, slated to cost 87’ per Maryland taxpayer after the initial seed money provided by the federal government has been spent (Powledge, 1995). In Washington State, numerous agencies are devising policies and seeking public input on how government services could be delivered more effectively. In the city of Seattle, the data processing Department of Administrative Services has set up the PAN (Public Access Network) system that is providing government information and is planning to provide many of the services that are currently found on community networks. Although the information in this area is exploding rapidly, we have provided some pointers in Appendix B that will continue to have relevance.

Government is showing a great deal of interest in electronic access to information and services, and generally this activity should be encouraged. Many concerns still remain, however, that we need to recognize as citizens and as proponents of the new community. The first is that these efforts are often very disorganized and spring from a desire to join the stampede. Often there is little understanding or experience of either the technology and its implications (both positive and negative) nor the principles and policies that should guide its development. The second is that there is often little effort to truly involve the public in a meaningful way. The third concern is that government law makers—who are essentially "clueless," according to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) spokesperson John Perry Barlow—will pass unsound laws. Working more through ignorance (and political posturing) than malice, they might embrace measures like the Exon Bill that would address "decency"in the electronic realm by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Clearly the government can be a strong ally of community networks. Like the citizenry it ostensibly serves, it must be informed. If the legislators lack understanding or serve other masters than the people, democratic community networks are in for an uncertain ride ahead. Ready access to information and communication services, for example, is critical to a democracy, but government officials and agencies are generally unwilling to explore innovative concepts such as providing free e-mail accounts to all citizens. Although this could be provided inexpensively, corporate interests are likely to obstruct projects of this type. Since this medium may very well be the dominant medium in the twenty-first century, citizens can ill afford to let important government decisions go unmonitored. Without public outcry, government may — wittingly or unwittingly — leave citizens entirely out of the process.

As we've mentioned throughout this book, corporations are the dominant structure of the modern age for organizing resources to attain goals. We've argued that these corporate goals — and the processes by which these goals are realized — have frequently gone unchecked, often to the detriment of communities. This caveat, however, is very general and is useful largely as a reminder not to rely entirely on the commercial sector for community networks or other public goods. The commercial sector will not do it. Corporations' priorities are elsewhere.

As consumers and as citizens, we need to work with corporations as independent groups of consumers and citizens in a give-and-take manner to ensure that citizens and communities get what they need. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, citizens are generally unorganized and rarely speak with authority or power. Citizen deference would need to change as some corporations are truly thinking big and are apparently poised to take multi-billion-dollar leaps into the network frontier. While their plans are certainly interesting and will undoubtedly expand the opportunities for entertainment (creating, for example, Mortal Kombat XXIV as interactive virtual reality), the concerns of ordinary people in ordinary communities may be the last thing on the minds of the developers of those new services.

In various places in the United States and all over the world, corporations are developing pilot programs, such as wiring homes for interactive television using fiber-optic cable. On top of that there is already a bevy of commercial-network providers that supply services (such as chat lines, on-line support groups, and hobbyist forums) in addition to or instead of standard Internet services like Telnet and e-mail and access to the World Wide Web through Lynx and graphical browsers. By now the software behemoth Microsoft has also weighed in with its Microsoft Network, which has already sparked harsh criticism based on its bundling of the network client software in with its Windows 95 operating system. Microsoft Network has been carefully crafted to appeal to a large spectrum of interests and features with, for example, a large section on women's issues. While Microsoft and others may be able to cultivate a large user base, the future of democracy and community building solely within the confines of a corporately owned "cyber-mall" is unlikely. There is also a push to build consumer expectations in ways that echo corporate direction. AT&T, for example, has launched a series of ads both testing the waters and painting a future for a series of (AT&T) products: "Have you ever gotten a call on your TV? Ordered tickets from a bank machine?"Et cetera, et cetera. "You will,"they state confidently. Stay tuned ...

In addition to the expensive and ubiquitous public relations campaign that companies are waging for the hearts, minds, and wallets of the next generation of media consumers, corporate lobbyists are also waging a behind-the-scenes struggle for legislation that favors their particular enterprise. Gary Chapman of the 21st Century Project in Austin, reports, for example, that Southwestern Bell had 129 registered lobbyists working in Austin (the Texas state capitol) to ensure passage of a telecommunications "reform" bill that was favorable to Southwestern Bell. In order to begin to appreciate the magnitude of this lobbying work done in the corporate behest versus a public-interest agenda (however defined) one need only consider the salaries alone of the people involved in the lobbying in this single state (albeit a large one) of the 50 American states. Clearly, outspending the corporate sector is not an option.

In the mid 1980s, Tom Grundner, working at the Case Western Reserve University Medical School in Cleveland, Ohio, started St. Silicon's Hospital, an Apple II based on-line question-and-answer forum that people could reach with their modems. Doctors were on-hand electronically to answer questions on a wide range of medical issues. The system proved to be very popular, and Grundner launched a more ambitious system, the Cleveland Free-Net in 1986 (Neff, 1995) whose basic features defined the canonical Free-Net or community-network system. Students and faculty members at U.S. universities had long had their Internet access subsidized by taxpayers but Case-Western was the first university (and still only one of a handful) that allowed some of its computer resources to be used by the community at large. After the success of the Cleveland system, people from all over the United States and from many other countries began to inquire as to how they might replicate the system. In response, Grundner started a new organization, the National Public Telecommunications Network (NPTN), to help facilitate these requests. Initially an "organizing committee"is formed and, later, for a small fee or an agreement to "cybercast"(distribute over the Internet) information to other Free-Nets, a community network becomes an NPTN affiliate. Each NPTN affiliate (now numbering over 70 and growing) has an exclusive franchise over its local calling region, precluding the existence of two NPTN affiliates in the city of Seattle, for example. Although NPTN does not play a major role in the development of the Free-Net or community network in the affiliate's community, NPTN provides useful services, particularly through their "blue book,"which describes both organizational and technical advice on setting up community networks. Incidentally, NPTN has no desire to force community networks to develop according to a Free-Net "party line."

In recent years, Grundner's attention has been focused on ways in which community networks can be institutionalized. One such approach involves the creation of a "Corporation for Public Cybercasting," modelled somewhat along the lines of the U.S. Public Broadcasting System, that would help develop and maintain community networks by leveraging community resources with federal support (Grundner, 1993a). Grundner has very strong feelings in this area: The first is that the U.S. taxpayer paid for development of the Internet and subsidized its use for many years and, consequently, should reap some of the benefits. Another is that Free-Net community networks should have no fees associated with their use — they must be free to use, much as public libraries are free to use. Grundner believes that free public computer networks will be as important to the twenty-first century as free public libraries are to the twentieth century.

In addition to the organizations working within communities, there are many organizations working outside communities that are nevertheless very important to the community-network movement. To build strong communities we must focus on communities as well as the context that surrounds the communities; we must look and work simultaneously inside the communities and outside the communities.

Although NPTN's influence has been significant, it is not the only player in town. A largely unrealized but potentially powerful alliance of librarians, educators, network and bulletin-board systems users, community activists, social service providers, government agencies, and concerned computer professionals has been growing that helps develop community networks, but is involved in all aspects of democratic communications technology as well. Several electronic distribution lists for discussion now exist on the Internet (Appendix B) that provide active forums on these issues. There are also an increasing number of conferences and workshops on these topics. Two early and influential workshops were organized in the early 1990s by Richard Civille for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and for the Center for Civic Networking. Steve Cisler of Apple Computer has hosted two well-attended "Ties that Bind"conferences (Cisler, 1994b and 1995b) with support from the Morino Institute in which many pioneering community-network advocates including Frank Odasz, Dave Hughes, Lauren Glen-Davitian, Andrew Blau, Tom Grundner, Jane Polly, Doug Carmichael, George Baldwin, and many others participated.

There are many organizations helping to shape issues and represent concerns of nascent community enterprises in larger contexts—in government, in media, and in the general consciousness of the citizenry. Many of these organizations are specifically interested in computer-network issues: the Center for Civic Networking, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the Institute for Global Communication, the Morino Institute, and the National Public Telecommunications Network. Many others have expanded their roles as electronic information and communication technologies have become more prevalent. Groups in this category include the American Library Association, the Alliance for Community Media, the American Society of Information Scientists, the Taxpayers Assets Project the American Council of the Blind, the American Civil Liberties Union, OMB Watch, the Benton Foundation, and many other organizations and foundations. Participating in these organizations is an excellent way to help build an ameliorative environment for community networks; a list of many of these organizations can be found in Appendix A.

In early 1994, a number of nonprofit groups headquartered in Washington DC, started the Telecommunication Policy Roundtable (TPR, 1994), an informal coalition that meets monthly to present information and proposals. The TPR group and many other advocacy organizations have published numerous white papers on their recommendations for telecommunications such as "A Vision of Change" (CCN, 1993) by the Center for Civic Networking. Contact and other information on those organizations is also available in Appendix A and on the Web site for this book. In 1995, a regional version of TPR, TPR-NE was launched in the Boston area (Klein, 1995), and several others, including ones in Seattle and Chicago, are planned or are under development. Also, in 1994, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) launched the CWEIS (Community-Wide Educational and Information Systems) Initiative to help develop community networks in conjunction with CPB radio and television affiliates.

Infrastructure providers including Internet providers, telephone companies, and cable television companies influence individual community networks directly through their rates and policies. Their influence is much broader than that, however, largely because of their strong role in the creation of public policy through lobbying and public relations work as Bell's two-page, four-color advertisement in the October, 1994 Wired magazine exemplifies. The magnitude of actions of such companies has the potential to swamp issues of access and participation that are so critical to the development of community-oriented, democratic technology.

Since community networks will depend increasingly on these providers (which may ultimately involve Public Utility Districts) for their technological infrastructure, it is important to secure the best relationship possible. This generally means negotiating the best possible rate, but it sometimes means securing bandwidth for the network, especially when resources are limited. Historically, in order to win community presence on the cable television spectrum, it was necessary that political pressure be brought to bear. Community-access activists applied pressure on the government and the cable industry to provide channels and funding for access centers in exchange for local franchises according to public, educational and government (PEG) guidelines established by federal legislation. Although seldom realized, it may also be possible for the community network — by itself or as a member of a cooperative (Feuer, 1993) — to become an Internet provider, possibly attaining both better prices and peace of mind.

As this chapter shows, there is a rich and diverse set of players comprising a social web of a community network. Integrating the community network with this web is one of the fundamental challenges facing network developers and their supporters. Although the structure and the roles and responsibilities of the participants will necessarily vary from community to community, the nature of the challenge is identical: The community network must become part of the community in order to serve it.