US/ND-2: Community infostructure
Community infostructure
Frank Odasz (franko@bigsky.dillon.mt.us)
Fri, 6 Sep 96 11:12:57 MDT
Info-Ren discussants;
I'd like to commend the Info-ren folks on their quality
organization and moderation of this discussion. This is the best-
run electronic public input initiative I've seen.
In about 1867 when the first transatlantic telegraph was
installed wonderfully flowery visions of our global human family
being joined together were ushered from many a pulpit. Most of
these visions have yet to be realized, even with today's
technologies. The point is there's a big difference between
espousing theoretical benefits and demonstrated
practice/realization of specific benefits.
Beyond basic physical connectivity, universal service needs to
focus on the social infostructure by which people become aware of
the validated, not assumed, benefits of connectivity at all
levels.
Effective citizen engagement in lifelong learning and
purposeful public problem solving, that improves lives, is a key
issue. We need ongoing evaluative metrics to measure what's
really happening after connectivity is made available. Caring and
connectivity are two related types of bandwidth which must
interact with common sense.
The following quote, from another listserv, points to the need
for attending to the specifics of each community. IF each
community and school's public enjoyed widespread understanding of
what's at stake, and what real benefits are possible, I suspect
MOST would quickly find local funding to get the job done.
QUOTE from an Australian:
Why can't governments decide on a "minimum level of
services" that must be available in every rural community and
then stick to it?
The question was asked in the context of ongoing withdrawal of
services both government e.g. health and private enterprise e.g.
banks) in rural areas?
My immediate reaction was that because of the diversity between
individual communities, prescribing a minimum level of services
would be impossible and largely inequitable. I believe the
services available in any given community should depend on the
population demographics, history, local economic conditions and
social characteristics pertaining to that community.
Moreover, any attempt to prescribe a minimum level without
appropriate consultation and input by local residents is grossly
undemocratic and doomed to failure.
ENDQUOTE.
NPTN filed with the FCC an interesting suggestion that funding go
to those communities who have organized their various constituent
institutions around a shared vision for shared connectivity. In
their view "community networks" are the proper model; joining
schools, libraries, local government, local businesses,
healthcare, etc. As a k-100 lifelong learning society all
institutions and aspects of communities need to be part of this
major societal change...plus the fact that sustainability is most
attainable through such collaborations.
Case study: In Dillon, Montana, while waiting for our big telco
to get around to offering flat rate Internet locally,
the local Photomat owner closed the Photomat and opened Blue Moon
Technologies to offer unlimited local Internet for $20/month.
If he can do it, why can't most communities? Our town of 4,000
now has three local Internet providers.
NOTE: Ken Phillips of www.open.org in Eugene, Oregon has a
sustainable model of a community network offering unlimited local
access for $5/month.
What Dillon still lacks in our schools, libraries, businesses and
local government, is a vision for what the Internet can mean, and
any collaboration to acquire and disseminate Internet expertise
and benefits.
We have a majority who don't know what's already available, and
who won't attend free demonstrations of Internet benefits. Our
majority of citizens are "Will-nots" who frankly don't care about
any of it. (Another govt/telco scam at milking profits from
gullible citizens.) They literally don't yet see how it can
impact their lives in a positive way.
Most of the telcos (and Congresspersons,) discovered Internet
within the last two years, yet don't allude to the need for
discovery by us all as to the validated benefits and emerging
social dynamics of online citizen engagement.
We need a national teleliteracy awareness campaign focused on
measuring 'real benefits for real people,' not more hypeway
glitz.
Footnote: Many telcos and online businesses consider themselves
in direct competition with community networks generated from the
bottom-up and plan to replace them with their top-down
monopolistic enterprises. Will this trend bring us a society of
solo browsers, or a citizenry engaged in purposeful public
problem solving and an electronic democracy? The citizens
themselves will ultimately decide based on their level of
participation.
\ /
- >>>>--Big Sky Telegraph--> Welcomes your imagination!
/ \ Frank Odasz; franko@bigsky.dillon.mt.us
Western Montana College of the University of Montana
>>>-NEW--> http://macsky.bigsky.dillon.mt.us/
Telnet: 192.231.192.1 Dialup:406-683-7680, Type bbs