Community Networks
"Community" and "Network" have many different meanings associated with technology and society. Put together they form a very suggestive combination referring to electronic technology being harnessed to enable people in a given (geographic) area to communicate with each other and to have access to information related to local events, community issues, local government and organizations.
The first community network was "Community Memory" in Berkeley, California, started by a collective of three early 'tech activists' in 1972. Terminals were placed in public places and they connected with very slow modems (110 bits per second) to a mini-computer in San Francisco. Access was free, and this remains a goal of most community networks to this day. In the 1980's the Cleveland Free-Net in Ohio grew from an electronic bulletin board on a personal computer to a Unix-based multi-user system that attracted thousands of members around the city. Local individuals volunteered to moderate 'online discussions' on auto mechanics, medical problems, and many other topics. Hundreds of other such networks, many of which followed the Free-Net model, sprang up in Canada and the United States, and later in Europe and beyond. These provided access to electronic communication long before commercial services did so, and also quite some time before the advent of graphic interfaces and of the World Wide Web.
With the very rapid growth of the web (around 1993-1994), and the rise of commercial Internet access and content providers, people who wanted to be online became less dependent on local, voluntary networks. As they became more interested in entertainment, contacts, and information that were not necessarily related to their immediate geographic environment, they were also pushed in that direction by commercial content providers, who were eager to replace the 'many-to-many' model of communication prevailing in the early days of the Net by their own, much more lucrative, 'television model' based on passive consumers. Also, the prevailing sense of electronic community shifted from locality to issues based. All this proved a major challenge to community networks, whose growth was stunted, and quite a few disappeared altogether.
Yet community networks kept attracting idealistic volunteers and professionals who understood that place does matter. In 1997 the U.S. Association For Community Networking was formed and in Europe the European Alliance for Community/Civic Networks met in Milan. Many projects such as Parthenay in France, the civic networks of Milan and Bologna in Italy, Bayern-Online in Germany, etc. attracted world-wide attention, the more so since they involved active support by (local) governmental bodies. There is now even a "Global Community Networks Partnership" established during an international conference in Barcelona in 2000.
Most activity remains firmly grounded at the very local level. The idea is still to provide communication opportunities and information services that are needed by the citizens but are either not available or too expensive. In the early days this was basic access to the electronic networks, and also (basic) training to use the technology. These days, hosting web pages for non-profit organizations, and offering more advanced training continue to be a major activity. Most recently, connectivity using the 802.11 protocols, commonly known as 'Wi-Fi' (Wireless Fidelity) - connectivity over the radio spectrum has provided a new focus for community activists. For these projects to work co-operation is necessary between voluntary providers of wireless access points, their users, and the local community.
Experience shows that it is important to let the people themselves find out and decide what their needs are with regards to information and connectivity. On early community networks for instance, people were very keen to communicate with each other, and less interested in accessing information provided by local authorities. 'Techies' all too easily think they know what local people want or need, but without local input a project is risky and may be doomed, even with money for equipment and connectivity. Thus, many community networkers have come to realize that the technology is not the hard part. Forming strong partnerships and winning local participation and support is often more challenging.
Steve Cisler