Subject: Report from Universal Access Workshop, TC97
My thanks to all who took part in the workshop, especially to
those I recruited from the floor at the last minute! As
moderator of this "pilot" consultation on national universal
access strategy issues, I'd say that we successfully
demonstrated the desirability, the utility and the feasibility
of such a process.
Regards
Garth
===================================================
Telecommunities Canada 97
UNIVERSAL ACCESS WORKSHOP
Halifax, Dalhousie University
Sunday, August 17, 1997, 1:30 - 5:30 pm
PANEL PRESENTATIONS BY:
Michael Binder
ADM, Spectrum, Information Technology and
Telecommunications, Industry Canada
Garth Graham
Telecommunities Canada Board, and EPS Steering Group
Andrew Reddick
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and EPS Steering Group
Marita Moll
Canadian Teachers Federation, and EPS Steering Group
Gareth Shearman
Telecommunities Canada Board, British Columbia
Community Networks Association, and CAP National
Advisory Board
SYNOPSIS OF BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS
BY PRIMARY QUESTION
* HOW SHOULD WE PARTICIPATE IN THE EVOLUTION OF A
NATIONAL STRATEGY ON UNIVERSAL ACCESS? * WHAT IS THE
ROLE OF TELECOMMUNITIES CANADA IN THE VARIOUS PROPOSED
NATIONAL ACCESS ADVISORY BODIES?
It is fundamental for framing the scope of both the access
strategy and advisory body processes that they allow for wide
spread consultation and participation at the earliest stages.
The interests of community nets should be represented in that
consultation. But consultations are also needed to address
better models for community networking and public access. To
be successful, both processes must remain open with sound
information sharing/communications plans designed to both
inform and continually gather feedback.
A generally accepted definition of access is needed to
facilitate discussion and decision making. It is very clear that
any definition or discussion of access must have the need for
TWO WAY communication at its base (email was discussed as
fundamental).
Since A national consensus is needed, the consultation process
must include key national interest groups (beyond community
nets). But we suggest that telecos and big business should not
be included. As many of the issues and factors fall within
provincial jurisdiction, views must be sought at the local level
and also consolidated/represented by province.
A federal/provincial/territorial/municipal Access Strategy
should be discussed at higher levels such as First Ministers
Meetings and that the focus should be on "implementation" of a
National Public Access Strategy, not just "discussions". More
federal government departments need to be involved in the
development of a cohesive action plan to be developed among
all levels of government. As well, all levels of government
need to focus more resources on the issues associated with
public access policy.
We suggest that Telecommunities Canada improve it's level of
regional representation to be able to offer a more coordinated,
stronger voice for involvement in processes such as the
Access Strategy and the Advisory Body.
There are things that we can do ourselves. At the local level
all community networks can increase the level of debate about
the allocation, use and funding of EPS by:
- design opportunities and experiences to increase the
discussion of EPS at the local level.
- draw stakeholders into the discussion with surveys, public
consultations and meetings.
- assign people to monitor, edit and condense the discussion
and post it publicly to both demonstrate the use of EPS and
build expertise in its use.
- continue to design and execute strategies for the creation of
public access points.
* WHAT CRITICAL NEEDS OF COMMUNITY NETWORKS SHOULD A
NATIONAL ACCESS STRATEGY ADDRESS?
Both the Access Strategy and the Advisory Body must be truly
national in scope, recognize fully the regional and provincial
differences which exist, and avoid stressing the commercial
aspects of Internet access. Access to bandwidth, connectivity
and universality are, and will remain, infrastructure issues
which must be recognized and dealt with. Any process looking
at the area of community access must focus on the whole
access picture, community networks, community access,
(CAP), sites and sites in libraries and schools. Both processes
must understand that community is the key to community
access, funding without strong community involvement is
useless.
To make community access less of a struggle, there are two
key messages to keep in mind:
* Communities must find and own their solutions
* Community nets see themselves providing tools for
communities
The information base offered through community access is a
primary issue. Coordination and the inter-relationship
between all community access mechanisms; community
networks, CAP sites, the education and library communities
must continue to improve. Public terminals are essential
components of community access.
Governments are not going far enough to facilitate the
necessary discussions re solving both financial and technical
issues for community networking sites. A mechanism to allow
for a "best practices" discussion forum needs to be put into
place.
CAP criteria should be amended to include applicants getting
points for a commitment to turn a CAP site into a community
network. ie establishing a "telecommunity presence". It was
acknowledged that CAP has an awareness problem nationwide
- especially among the public at large. It was suggested that
"the government PR machine" be used to address this.
C- Net (UNB) and related online technical discussions re
networking and technical issues, need to be made available in
french as well.
Barriers to the development of community nets:
* For individuals:
Affordability - local / long distance charges to get
online
- cost for equipment purchase, upgrading,
maintenance
Literacy
Techno-phobia
Training
Impressions / image of on-line activities (do not want to
participate due to perceived nature of content -
extremists, hate material, pornography, etc)
For community nets:
*all those mentioned above apply to the nets themselves
as well* plus:
Expertise - technical
- organizational
- specific skills (ex. Fund raising, marketing)
Number of volunteers (burnout)
Infrastructure
*Needs a champion to make it work*
*The key concern for community nets and CAP sites is
sustainability
The question of "access to what?" includes (in general order of
priority):
Training
Email
Equipment **comments made that this varies by
community in terms of needed sophistication - dial in is
sufficient for some communities
Local content
WWW
* ARE THERE ANY CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
COMMUNITIES OF AFFINITY OR LOCATION, OR BETWEEN
COMMUNITY NETS IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS?
One breakout group felt that rural is different from urban,
small communities are different from large ones and, as such,
issues are often different.
Another breakout group concluded that all of the barriers to
the development of community nets listed above apply to both
rural and urban settings, however the issues are even more
intensely felt in rural communities. The same group felt that,
with basic access to net services and infrastructure, the needs
of "communities of interest" will be satisfied.
* HOW DO WE FUND ELECTRONIC PUBLIC SPACE?
A key issue with respect to the ongoing funding of electronic
public space is defining affordable access and universality.
Government programs at all levels, which are supporting public
access, need to have more flexible spending guidelines. eg.
Ontario provincial program was cited.
Financial sustainability is "the" priority. CAP criteria require
the participation of small businesses which are sometimes
simply absent in very small communities. CAP sites need more
than just seed funding and contract durations may need to be
extended beyond 18 months.
The Funding Models considered included:
1. 911 Model. 911 is now implemented nation-wide as a
service deemed essential. Access is ubiquitous. Funding for
the service is a hidden tax-Electronic Public Space (EPS) could
also be funded as a hidden tax.
2. Explicit Tax Model. This model is considered to be
extremely unpalatable to the public, and to the government. If
there are about 11 million households in Canada, a tax of
$10/month would bring in enough money to complement money
obtained from a Universal Service Fund. There are possible
options; such as electronic commerce transaction taxes, and
the bit tax and modem tax (hardware tax) models promulgated
by Arthur Cordell and others. It was noted that a solution like
an Explicit Tax Model would be more acceptable if there were
EPS National Standards akin to Medicare.
3. Public Utility Model. Treat EPS as just another utility like
hydro and water. Utility charges for EPS would appear monthly
on a household's utility bill. There was no support for this
model because utility charges would increase significantly and
it would probably be difficult for people to consider EPS as an
essential utility.
4. Tax Relief Model. This model uses the existing tax
structure by offering tax breaks for charitable donations for
EPS-much like charitable donations.
5. Multiple Partnership Model. The group that generated the
most models saw this model as the most feasible. It
unbundles all of the access components (connectivity, training,
content creation, etc) and brings together the private sector,
the not-for-profit sector, governments, and citizens in an
ongoing negotiation to determine what is fair and who will pay
with a goal to stable funding of EPS.
6. Universal Service Fund Model. This model mirrors the
American USF model by prescribing 1% of gross national
revenues from the telcos, cablecos and wireless companies
(1% of $20 billion CAN = $200m). This fund would be used for
connectivity. Additional funds would be required for training
and content. The group supporting this model acknowledged
that it would be a tough sell to the private sector.
Suggestions as to who would administer included the CRTC,
Community Networks, Library Boards, and a National Access
Board.
7. Community Cable TV model. Assuming that EPS is similar to
crown land and that commercial rights are a subset of the
entire electronic communications universe, it makes sense for
the government to create a statutory obligation on business
users to finance the development of electronic public space
and provide assistance for public access. One group noted that
the creation of public access TV channels on cable TV was one
model of this type of funding - although it was not very
effective and they did not want to repeat the same experience.
The requirement of land developers to provide space for
church, school and park development within their new
neighborhoods was cited as another example of this type of
development.
8. Negotiated fair price model. Assuming that EPS is
considered another use of the total commercial
communications "channel" then the users of EPS need to work
cooperatively to negotiate a fair price for EPS. A variation of
"fair price" is for tax dollars to be used to purchase EPS from
the commercial interests which control the channel. A model
similar to roadway taxes could be used which distributes the
responsibility for collection and spending of the "taxes"
amongst the appropriate levels of municipal, provincial and
federal governments.
9. Negotiated replacement costs model. Community nets need
to be in place in order for EPS to reach people. The private
sector should "give back" to communities and people (since
community nets are creating their clients. As personal
services (government, private sector - banking) are replaced
with online ones delivered in some cases by community nets -
the resources saved by using this delivery mechanism should
be reinvested in community nets / EPS.
In other discussion it was noted that:
- the fight for funding often unites and builds a community.
- funding options should not be limited to just one or two
models
- the technical complexity of the communications "channel"
requires extensive collaboration and interactively amongst
government, business, private and public players.
- local business has a rightful place as part of a local
community.
COMPLETE BREAKOUT SESSION NOTES BY GROUP
GROUP FACILITATOR:
Michael Williamson, National Library of Canada
miw@ITS.NLC-BNC.CA
Question: How to fund electronic public space?
Background and Context
This Group focussed on the U.S. Telecommunications Act of
1996 (An original bill to provide for a pro-competitive,
de-regulatory national policy framework designed to
accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced
telecommunications and information technologies and services
to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to
competition, and for other purposes) because it was
precedent-setting in terms of designating funding (Universal
Service Fund) by addressing the following questions:
Who Shall Pay?
Who Shall Receive?
Who Shall Administer?
The Act requires the FCC and the States to ensure that
universal service is available at rates that are just,
reasonable, and affordable.
No such governance exists in Canada at this time, nor does it
seem likely that something that is ostensibly as
straightforward as the U.S. model will be considered for
Canadian society.
Funding Models
The Breakout Group considered a number of existing funding
models, including:
1. 911 Model. 911 is now implemented nation-wide as a
service deemed essential. Access is ubiquitous. Funding for
the service is a hidden tax - Electronic Public Space (EPS)
could also be funded as a hidden tax. Whether or not citizens
and communities would ever view EPS as essential as 911 is
open to debate (911 service was not universal in Canada until
recently, and was not considered to be essential until it had
garnered public attention and support). Because this model
would still constitute a tax - albeit hidden - it is probably a
hard sell to the public.
2. Explicit Tax Model. While this model must be mentioned,
the Breakout Group considered it to be extremely unpalatable
to the public, and to the government. The simple equation that
public money should pay for what are considered by some to be
public services no longer applies. If there are about 11 million
households in Canada, a tax of $10/month would bring in
enough money to complement money obtained from a
Universal Service Fund. However, that being said, there are
possible options such as electronic commerce transaction
taxes which would have to be negotiated at the international
level; because 80% of web content on the net is
commercially-based, clearly there could be sizable
revenues as transaction-based activities accelerate. The bit
tax and modem tax (hardware tax) models promulgated by
Arthur Cordell and others are other tax-based considerations.
While there was support for these tax-based models, there
was a realization that they are only part of the puzzle. It was
noted that a solution like an Explicit Tax Model would be more
acceptable if there were EPS National Standards akin to
Medicare.
3. Public Utility Model. This model treats EPS as just another
utility like hydro and water. Utility charges for EPS would
appear monthly on a household s utility bill. This model has
been suggested in Edmonton because utility companies can see
windows of opportunity by participating in the knowledge
society. There was no support for this model because utility
charges would increase significantly and it would probably be
difficult for people to consider EPS as an essential utility.
4. Tax Relief Model. This model uses the existing tax
structure by offering tax breaks for charitable donations for
EPS-much like charitable donations.
5. Multiple Partnership Model. This model attempts to
unbundle all of the access components (connectivity, training,
content creation, etc) and brings together the private sector,
the not-for-profit sector, governments, and citizens in an
ongoing negotiation to determine what is fair and who will pay
with a goal to stable funding of EPS. This model was seen to
be the most feasible one.
6. Universal Service Fund Model. This model mirrors the
American USF model by prescribing 1% of gross national
revenues from the telcos, cablecos and wireless companies
(1% of $20 billion CAN = $200m). This fund would be for
connectivity. Additional funds would be required for
training and content. There was support for this model as well
but acknowledgement that it would be a very tough sell to the
private sector. The question of who would administer an USF
was difficult to answer. Suggestions included the CRTC,
Community Networks, Library Boards, and a National Access
Board.
GROUP FACILITATOR:
Bruce Findlay
FINDLABE@gov.ns.ca
The group concentrated on the discussion questions related to
the Industry Canada/Heritage Canada National Access Strategy
and the National Access Advisory Body recommended by the
IHAC in their second set of recommendations. Specifically the
comments and recommendations of the group centered on
process and content.
Process
The group recommended strongly that both the access strategy
and advisory body processes allow for wide spread
consultation and participation at the earliest stages. It was
felt that this participation was fundamental for framing the
scope of both processes. To be successful both processes must
remain open with sound information sharing/communications
plans designed to both inform and continually gather feedback.
It was suggested that Telecommunities Canada improve
it's level of regional representation to be able to offer a more
coordinated, stronger voice for involvement in processes such
as the Access Strategy and the Advisory Body.
Content
Both the Access Strategy and the Advisory Body must be truly
national in scope, recognizing fully the regional and provincial
differences which exist. Both processes must avoid stressing
the commercial aspects of Internet access. With respect to
infrastructure, access to bandwidth, connectivity and
universality are, and will remain, issues which must be
recognized and dealt with. A key issue with respect to the
ongoing funding of electronic public space is defining
affordable access and universality. Any process looking at the
area of community access must focus on the whole access
picture, community networks, community access, (CAP), sites
and sites in libraries and schools. Both processes must
understand that community is the key to community access,
funding without strong community involvement is useless.
Short Snappers/ Other Comments
Rural is different from urban, small communities are different
from large ones and as such issues are often different.
Public terminals are essential components of community
access.
The information base offered through community access is the
primary issue.
Coordination and the inter-relationship between all community
access mechanisms; community networks, CAP sites, the
education and library communities must continue to improve.
GROUP FACILITATOR:
Patricia Williams
Williams.Patricia@ic.gc.ca
Points:
1. Financial sustainability is "the" priority. CAP criteria
require the participation of small businesses which are
sometimes simply absent in very small communities. CAP
sites need more than just seed funding and contract durations
may need to be extended beyond 18 months.
2. Governments are not going far enough to facilitate the
necessary discussions re solving both financial and technical
issues for community networking sites. A mechanism to allow
for a "best practices" discussion forum needs to be put into
place.
3. KEY POINT
There is a lack of a national strategy and consultation process
including key national interest groups. It was suggested that
telecos and big business should not be included in these
discussions.
4. CAP criteria should be amended to include applicants getting
points for a commitment to turn a CAP site into a community
network. ie establishing a "telecommunity presence".
5. A federal/provincial/territorial/municipal Access Strategy
should be discussed at higher levels such as First Ministers
Meetings and that the focus should be on "implementation" of a
National Public Access Strategy, not just "discussions".
6. It was acknowledged that CAP has an awareness problem
nationwide - especially among the public at large. It was
suggested that "the government PR machine" be used to address
this.
7. Government programs at all levels, which are supporting
public access, need to have more flexible spending guidelines.
eg. Ontario provincial program was cited.
8. More federal government departments need to be involved in
the development of a cohesive action plan to be developed
among all levels of government. As well, all levels of
government need to focus more resources on the issues
associated with public access policy.
9. Public consultations are needed to address better models for
community networking and public access.
10. C- Net (UNB) and related online technical discussions re
networking and technical issues, need to be made available in
french as well.
GROUP FACILITATOR:
Barbara Motzney
Barbara_Motzney@pch.gc.ca
General Discussion:
- First part of this group's session focused on experiences
of those present, discussing their concerns surrounding "How
do we make it less of a struggle?"
- Key message throughout all discussions:
* Communities must find and own their solutions
* Community nets see themselves providing tools for
communities
Barriers / issues to the development of community nets:
For individuals:
Affordability
- local / long distance charges to get on line
- cost for equipment purchase, upgrading,
maintenance
Literacy
Techno-phobia
Training
Impressions / image of on-line activities (do not want to
participate due to perceived nature of content -
extremists, hate material, pornography, etc)
For community nets:
*all those mentioned above apply to the nets themselves as
well*
Expertise - technical
- organizational
- specific skills (ex. Fund raising, marketing)
Number of volunteers (burnout)
Infrastructure
*Needs a champion to make it work*
*The key concern for community nets and CAP sites is
sustainability
- General discussion concluded that all the issues above apply
to both rural and urban settings, however the issues are even
more intensely felt in rural communities.
- On the issue of "communities of interest" - participants felt
that with basic access to net services and infrastructure,
those needs will be satisfied.
Participation in National Access Strategy
*a generally accepted definition of access is needed to
facilitate discussion and decision making
YES - interests of community nets should be represented
- as many of the issues / factors fall within provincial
jurisdiction, views must be sought at the local level and also
consolidated/represented by province
- a national consensus is needed, as is cooperation among a
range of interests (beyond community nets)
Access to (in general order of priority):
Training
Email
Equipment *comments made that this varies by
community in terms of needed sophistication - dial in is
sufficient for some communities*
Local content
WWW
-Very clear that any definition or discussion of access must
have the need for TWO WAY communication at its base (email
was discussed as fundamental)
Funding EPS:
- community nets need to be in place in order for EPS to reach
people
- private sector should "give back" to communities and people
(nets are creating clients!)
- as personal services (government, private sector - banking)
are replaced with online ones delivered in some cases by
community nets - resources saved by using this delivery
mechanism should be reinvested in community nets / EPS
GROUP FACILITATOR:
Jon Hall
jonhall@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
The group tackled two questions: How to Fund the creation of
EPS and what delegates can do immediately at the local level
to support national and larger efforts.
How to fund EPS
1. Assuming that EPS is similar to crown land and that
commercial rights are a subset of the entire electronic
communications universe, it makes sense for the government
to create a statutory obligation on business users to finance
the development of electronic public space and provide
assistance for public access. The group noted that the creation
of public access TV channels on cable TV was one model of
this type of funding - although it was not very effective and
they did not want to repeat the same experience. The
requirement of land developers to provide space for church,
school and park development within their new neighborhoods
was cited as another example of this type of development.
2. If EPS is considered another use of the total commercial
communications "channel" then the users of EPS need to work
cooperatively to negotiate a fair price for EPS.
3. A variation of #2 above is for tax dollars to be used to
purchase EPS from the commercial interests which control the
channel. A model similar to roadway taxes could be used which
distributes the responsibility for collection and spending of
the "taxes" amongst the appropriate levels of municipal,
provincial and federal governments.
In other discussion it was noted that:
- the fight for funding often unites and builds a community.
- funding options should not be limited to just one or two
models
- the technical complexity of the communications "channel"
requires extensive collaboration and interactively amongst
government, business, private and public players.
- local business has a rightful place as part of a local
community.
What Can We Do
At the local level all community networks can increase the
level of debate about the allocation, use and funding of EPS by:
- design opportunities and experiences to increase the
discussion of EPS at the local level.
- draw stakeholders into the discussion with surveys, public
consultations and meetings.
- assign people to monitor, edit and condense the discussion
and post it publicly to both demonstrate the use of EPS and
build expertise in its use.
- continue to design and execute strategies for the creation of
public access points.