Should we form a ‘Corporation for Public Cybercasting’?

Author Tom Grundner is president of the nonprofit National Public Telecomputing Network, which has its origins in a series of research projects conducted at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland in the mid-1980s. Grundner, then at CWRU’s Department of Family Medicine, set up a single computerized phone system where people could call in on their computers, leave medical questions and have them answered by a certified physician. The success of “St. Silicon’s Hospital and Information Dispensary” led to the formation of the Cleveland FreeNet — now a network of 13 systems. NPTN continues to grow based on its dedication to community computing as a civic utility.

At the moment the entry of the United States into the Information Age is in disarray — particularly with regard to the development of public interest/public access information systems. What passes for “development” consists of a series of single-interest groups, each attempting to elbow the others out of the way in a competition for very limited financial resources. It is a zero-sum game in which someone (indeed, almost everyone) must lose.

K–12 network enthusiasts are pitted against librarians, who are pitted against health educators, vs. community computer developers, vs. government information providers, vs. senior citizen programs, vs. rural networking programs, vs. inner-city networks… and on, and on. If we have any hope of entering the Information Age with any semblance of equity, this must end.

One of the main reasons for this fragmentation is because, unlike other fields of community development, there is no unified mechanism for funding this kind of work. We do not “fit the existing priorities” of institutions ranging from government agencies, to foundations, to corporate donation offices. Some have expressed hope that this might change with the passage of the National Research and Education Network, or NREN, legislation. I believe that hope is unfounded.

THE EMPEROR HAS FEW CLOTHES

The fact is the NREN legislation, as it is now constituted, contains no provisions for the development of community-based computerized information and communications systems. It contains no provisions that would allow the people who are supposed to pay for this network with their tax dollars to achieve any direct benefit from it. This, in turn, undermines the major rationale for the development of the NREN at all. Indeed, without a parallel development of community computers, the NREN makes little sense.

The NREN legislation carries credibility primarily because of the “E” in its name — especially if K–12 schools are included in the mix. Even here, the bill falls short.

What is the point of creating a national education network — of training kids on electronic mail, information access, etc., and then cutting them off the instant they graduate? It is like having mandatory driver’s education in a world without cars, or at least in a world in which cars are driven only by a handful of the demographically elite.

We need an NCON. Perhaps what is needed is not an NREN but an NCON — a National COmmunity Network. A concept that would include researchers and educators but would also include the library community, and government information dissemination, and the health education community, and the senior citizen networks, and the small and medium-sized business community, and other aspects of our society that can benefit from the developments of the Information Age.

By so doing, the concept of research is extended. A “researcher” is not necessarily limited to scientists who need easy access to supercomputers. It includes them, but extends the concept to anyone who needs information for any purpose — from a small business owner who needs the most recent economic data, to a parent who needs access to information about her child’s illness.

By so doing, the concept of education is extended. A “learner” is not necessarily limited to being enrolled in a high school or college program. It includes them, but extends the concept to anyone, anywhere, at any age, at any time, who wishes to learn and needs access to resources to do that.

In the absence of a systematic plan for the development of community computing; in the absence of a plan that would responsibly extend at least some of the benefits of a national network to the people who are being asked to pay for it — the NREN makes no sense.

An alternative model. On the other hand, suppose we could find a way to bring all of those competing interests together under one conceptual roof? Suppose we could create a funding vehicle that would systematically support the development of community computers, and provide money for the development of K–12 programs, and library programs, and rural programs, and urban programs, and senior citizen programs? Suppose we could create a situation that would allow the NREN to benefit all citizens. Is there a model for such a solution? I believe there is — that of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

The CPB is a nonprofit corporation, created by federal law, which receives its core funding from the federal government — but is not an agency of the federal government. The board of directors is appointed by the president of the United States, but he may not have more than half of the board composed of members of any one political party. Their job is to promote the development of public radio and public television in cities and towns throughout the United States. They do this by supporting the building of stations (along with the NTIA) and by providing high-quality, national-scope, programming.

I am wondering if perhaps this new medium doesn’t deserve at least the same consideration as has been received by radio and TV. I am wondering if perhaps it isn’t time to create a “Corporation for Public Cybercasting” (CPC) along the same lines as CPB.

THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC CYBERCASTING

The CPC would be a nonprofit corporation, created by federal law, with a board appointed by the president of the United States, which receives its core funding from the federal government — but would not be an agency of the federal government — just as the CPB is now.

It could be created either as part of the current NREN legislation, or in a separate bill, and its purpose would be threefold:

• It would help establish and operate free public-access community computer systems in cities and towns throughout the U.S.; and to link them into a common national network via the NREN. This would include initial and ongoing core funding for equipment and personnel costs — just as the CPB and NTIA does now for PBS and NPR.

• It would develop and deliver across this network high-quality, national-scope information services to supplement what each community is able to develop on its own — just as the CPB does now for PBS and NPR.

• It would develop special programs to introduce telecomputing to the general public with special emphasis on K–12 students and teachers, senior citizens, the handicapped, women and minority populations; and to develop this medium with special regard to community service applications and government connectivity — just as the CPB does now for PBS and NPR.

In addition, the CPC would have limited but guaranteed free access to the NREN or any other network that is created or supported in whole or in part with taxpayer funds.

The CPC would meet the criteria we set up earlier. It would provide a unified home for all the scattered groups that are now out there. It would give each member of Congress a reason to vote for the NREN; namely, that it will directly benefit all of their constituents. And it opens at least some of the benefits of the network to everyone from kids to senior citizens; from colleges, to corporations, to community groups.

But a question still remains: How are we going to pay for it?

THE COST OF A COMMUNITY NETWORK

This national network of community computer systems would be funded via a federal/state/local partnership program involving a series of two-to-one matching grants.

For any given community computer system, the CPC would match $2 for every $1 raised at the state level, up to a limit of $100,000 per system for core funding and $50,000 for educational and special program development. The state government would match $2 for every $1 raised at the local level up to a limit of $50,000 for core funding and $25,000 for educational and special program development. Thus the maximum amounts for any given system would look like this:

[[don’t know how to format this table
Max/

Federal State Local System

Core Support $100,000 $50,000 $25,000 $175,000

Special Pgms 50,000 25,000 12,500 87,500

Total Exposure 150,000 75,000 37,500 262,500

For example, at the federal level, to bring at least one community computer to each of 100 cities (e.g., 50 largest cities in the U.S., plus each of the state capitals), would entail a maximum exposure of $15 million per year. An additional $1 million per year would be needed to support CPC core staff and functions. Thus a $16 million total would make computerized information and communications services accessible to the bulk of our citizenry, and place us on a path of no return with regard to the Information Age.

At the state level, to use Ohio as an example, to put a fully funded community computer into each of Ohio’s seven major cities (covering well over 50 percent of the state’s population) would cost the state $525,000 per year.

Matching funding at the local level would occur via city/county government funding, private donations, grantsmanship, user solicitations, and so forth.

(I am using “largest cities” as a selection criterion here only for purposes of illustration. Selection could be made via any number of factors, such as geography, rural/urban mix, etc.)

Additional monies could and would be raised by both the CPC and the individual affiliates — just as NPR and PBS stations do now — which would allow an individual system to do more innovative things than what might be allowed by just the core funding alone.

The one thing that is certain is that the concept of community computing is not going to go away. There is no way I can imagine a 21st Century in which we do not have free public-access community computer systems, just like our century had the free public library. The question is no longer “whether,” the only question is “when.”

Your support for developing a Corporation for Public Cybercasting will go a long way toward making that day arrive sooner rather than later.

For more information on CPC, call Project Startide, Box 1987, Cleveland, OH 44106. E-mail to startide@nptn.org. (216) 247-5800, fax (216) 247-3328. Though written by Tom Grundner, president of the National Public Telecomputing Network, it does not necessarily represent the views of any particular NPTN affiliate or organizing committee.