Pittsburgh I-Net Working Group Proposal – Review by Kathy Schroerlucke, 4/21,1999.

It is clear, succinct and for the most part understandable.  It provides background and sets up the proposal well.  I found a few points confusing, less clear and have a few suggestions for you to consider.

Substantive:

--------------------

1.  Under “Why Community Groups use....”, item #2, Community communications....

Community Groups as Consumers of Web Content

I think you are wrong about the major use of the Internet by Community Groups as communications and I think you are making the wrong case here.  

Community groups are not using the Internet for communications.  Not until more individuals have Internet access at home will this be actually true, especially for the reasons you mention (e.g. organizing, communicating with constituents and community residents.)  Even many of the activists groups in Pittsburgh don’t use e-mail because the individuals working don’t have it at home.   It is true that email is used by organizational staff as well as individuals but e-mail is not the main application, nor does it drive the need for high speed connectivity.   In fact, for org’l staff e-mail puts them in touch with folk outside the Pittsburgh area which ends up being crucial to their ability to find resources, get needed information, suggestions, etc.  

Actually, the major use of the Internet by community groups is access to the web, the world of resources, information and connecting with others and other organizations outside their own geographical area.  This continues to be the lifeline for many organizations who use the web for to find needed content.  It’s like having a University of possibilities for program content and development and professional development at your fingertips.  Distance learning is becoming a greater use of the Internet as well.

Access to the web is essential for a community group’s sustainability and viability as consumers as well as producers.  A recent group of senior citizens found little on the web of use to them (which is hard to believe but true) and so instead of turning away from the technology they became producers of content and learned how to create web content.

For community groups who are working to sustain technical environments, provide learning cultures and activities and wanting to access the world of financial resources access to the web is essential.

As producers, community groups are increasingly exploring the Internet for fundraising, e-commerce and exploiting the world of grants and federal funds available.  Funding agencies are altering their strategies to fund groups who collaborate, especially groups who are collaborating by using technologies.  They are also giving priority to groups who are finding innovative uses of technology to connect their constituents, be they youth, adults or senior adults, to activities, resources and the world of communication that helps them connect beyond their indigenous world.  Anything that helps groups to move into the 21st century with a forward thinking mindset.

What keeps community groups from exploiting these resources to the fullest?  Primarily slow connections. 

You say “community groups currently need less bandwidth than the traditional I-Net participants.”  Again, I don’t know if this is true.  For example, a learning center where kids are creating interactive multi-media products that need to either be transmitted via Internet or produced on the web, need tremendous band-width; whereas, a larger institution who uses the Internet primarily for e-mail may not need as much bandwidth.  I just don’t think you have fairly portrayed the issue here.  It’s not size of organization but the way in which the Internet is being used.  I think you could do a better job at making this case by not relying on size but providing characteristics or criteria–is it size?  Is it number of users?  Is it content being transmitted?  Is it ability to sustain the costs and management of a I-net drop?  Isn’t it possible that a community organization could possibly be one of those drops?  I know that’s not what we are proposing and I think that’s fine but I fear you are lumping community organizations into a homogenous pot.  In fact, the I-Net drops will go to schools, museums, etc. because they have staff, depts., and funds to sustain them as well as an extensive need now.  So who agrees to be an I-Net drop has additional criteria beyond how they use the Internet – they agree to be the backbone and have the institutional resources to provide this service.  Somehow I don’t think you clearly define this and as a result, you give the impression that community groups are somehow inferior partners who basically are doing good things but need charity.  I know that’s an exaggeration but that’s how lots of folk will read this.

I’d rather see the proposal, place the institutional and community organizations in full partnership on the I-Net.  You can do this if you re-word and re-focus the proposal.

Community Groups as Producers of Internet Content

Community groups are actively pursuing production of content.  Some are working on community histories, others are working to map their own neighborhood resources, and still others tell stories of what they are doing so people will know how to connect to their services and programs.  Advertising as well as providing content which can benefit others is becoming a major activity of community groups.  For community learning centers, youth are creating interactive multi-media products that we cannot place on the web due to low bandwidth.  Providing high bandwidth to learning centers opens the door for young people to work with advanced technologies connecting them to the world of tomorrow rather than the world of today or yesterday. 

In fact, the lack of high speed/increased bandwidth keeps many community groups from becoming producers of content.  With slow connections and the inability to handle graphical and interactive material, many groups do not move forward nor push their constituents to become Internet content producers.

Community Groups as Communication Users
Staff of community groups find Internet e-mail critical to their success.  With Internet communications, they are able to connect with others who can help them, answer questions and give them guidance on how to use and support the technology in their centers.   At least for organizational staff, email is essential.

Students get free email through ISPs and access their email in public libraries and community organizations.  Without these public and local access points, the Internet would be only another set of encyclopedias for students.  With the public and local access points, the Internet becomes a way to interact with others that keeps students engaged in learning and thinking about their futures.

Senior Citizens are communicating with family members throughout the world.  This is one of the first uses of the Internet that Senior Citizens find useful. 

Community Groups as Point of Entry to Home Communications

Individuals learn about the Internet and computing through these community organizations.  As a result, many individuals find a way to procure technology for their homes.  Financial priorities change when individuals experience the power of having access to the Internet.  Thus, community organizations provide a portal for increased computing/Internet connectivity throughout the region.  This is a major point for TCI.  Without this stepping stone, many individuals would never subscribe to TCI internet services at home.

By the same token, I’m wondering if you should make the point: Community Groups and these I-Net Institutions will not place themselves in direct competition with TCI by providing Internet access to individuals.  I don’t know what this does to HHCAN but I can see this as a problem and they may need some assurances on this.  This could be an agreement by CBOs who are selected for the free access.  Maybe TCI could offer free installation to individuals who subscribe and mention they were helped/recommended by an I-Net member or connected community organization.  Just a thought!  It would be kind of neat though wouldn’t it?  If I, as an home user, called TCI and said I’m a constituent of Hazelwood Senior Center and want to subscribe at home, they could get the individual bootstrap discount–free installation and 6 months reduced monthly charge???  Hmmmm.

CAUTION:

I would urge you to be careful in characterizing the needs of community groups.  I encourage you to use “many community groups” rather than to suggest that all community groups need less bandwidth.   I think you are wrong in your characterization of community groups in this regard.

It is more accurate to say that typically community groups go through a developmental process.  As they begin to explore computing and Internet uses in their program and organization, their needs change.  They change actually more rapidly than their ability to respond in terms of being able to provide greater bandwidth to accommodate program development.

Providing cable modems will providing the bootstrap needed.  For many organizations, a cable modem will be adequate for a long time, perhaps forever.  For organizations who are actively engaged in developing content, especially those who are working with youth, their need for greater bandwidth will increase exponentially, in direct relationship to the staff’s ability to make greater use of the interactive media production capabilities. 

“Community groups typically use regular phone lines and one or more dial-up....for bandwidth needs.”  
So, I would urge you NOT to lump all community groups into one characterization but rather characterize them as organizations who are metamorphosizing themselves in the age of technology.  In light of this, I think you can make a stronger case for why cable modems and access to I-Net drops are essential to community organizations.  Your proposal sounds more like charity than advocacy.  I know that’s a strong criticism but that’s how I read it.  I think you can change it to reflect better and more accurately on the role and stages of community organizations.

What is happening right now is that community groups are trying to get faster internet connections and are pursuing ISDN, DSL, etc.  You need to characterize this development rather than characterize them as static organizations who are happy with one or more dial-up and slower connections.  This is just wrong!  Nearly every community organization either has or is working with some sort of LAN.  Even where there is one dial-up connection, a proxy server is often in place to provide multiple computer access.  This is a survival mechanism, not a desired strategy.  I don’t think you are making the case adequately about where community organizations are right now with technology! 

--------------------

CONFUSION

1.  I am totally confused by the costs discussion. Are you saying: to acommodate this proposal, TCI commits to an investment of $60,000 for the cable modems?
Modem/Installation: 100 * 300 for modems + 100 *300 for installation = $60k.  

2.  I don’t understand recurring costs.  Who are the “customers” who would ask questions?  Is this staff from the community organizations?   I’m totally confused by “The company will forego the monthly revenues of $40/month.  This is not clear.  Are you saying that if a community group gets one of the cable modems which TCI will donate and install for free, that neither will the community organization pay for monthly service?  So TCI is donating the line free of charge as well?  Then the community group only has to pay for ISP services?  Is that what you are saying?   I don’t get the $4,000 per month charge.  Where does this come from?  This paragraph and the previous needs clarification.  Also, are you saying that this number represents lost revenue for TCI?  I just don’t get the numbers nor the point of them.

If so, for how long?  While this can help a community group get bootstrapped it is not a sustainable strategy.  I may totally misunderstand what you are saying here.  But if I do understand it, then it seems to me that we need to flesh this out a bit more to show we know what we are doing.  For example:

– totally free connectivity can go a long way to help bootstrap a community organization but many community organizations can actually pay for the line, but may need a discount.
– just as we have some sort of e-rate for libraries and schools, I would like to suggest that TCI offer the non-profit community discounted services for cable connection.  
This way community groups can submit proposals for free connection or if they can afford it, apply for the TCI non-profit price. Alternatively, the group that manages the free service for community groups could also qualify and coordinate discounted service for non-profits who can afford reasonable costs.

Regarding the “panel of community representatives” and “competitive process.”  I think you can say that community organizations are beginning to organize around their technological issues.  To implement and manage the free and discounted cable access, a group will form representative of community technology centers who will help develop selection criteria, fair and equitable processes and procedures.  Whether this is a separate group or a group that works in conjunction with whoever manages the I-Net will be determined.   I think the Regional CTCNet can be helpful here–of course it’s just beginning to form.  Still, you can say we have a Pittsburgh Regional CTCNet who are beginning to meet and organize around cbo technology needs & issues.  Rather than “competitive process” why not use, RFP process.  We need to get community groups to cooperate, not compete.  It is that competition mentality that keeps them from actually helping each other for mutual and respective gains. 

I just don’t think the criteria you mention is adequate.  For example: rather than “reach” which is nebulous, the criteria might better be specified as impact on organizational’s sustainability, role/function in the community and to their constituents. In fact, access to the Internet can have a direct effect on sustainability, so if you determine selection by current sustainability, you are doing a disservice to those for whom access increases sustainability.  What we know is that an organization has to have staff who is responsible for and actively engaged in using, supporting and managing technology.   Maybe what you mean is an organization’s ability to pay for services beyond the free period.  At any rate, I don’t know what is needed for this proposal in terms of selection criteria. If this will be used as the criteria, then we need to work on this more!

The point about stimulating home purchases/subscriptions needs to be made earlier and reiterated later.  This is factual and an important point that most people don’t know.

BTW, it seems to me the free cable modems should be leased by community organizations.  They should put some money up, even if it is a small amount.  Once they move onto different connectivity, the modem should be returned to the pool and used to help another community organization.  Again, this is the type of procedure/policy the community management group can work out.  But I don’t think they should be “given” to community organizations and become their property.  

In light of this, I wonder if you might want to change the basic tenet of the proposal.  Rather than “provide 100 community groups” with cable modems and service, provide the capability for 100 groups to access this in order to bootstrap them during their developmental phases.  I think the current language of the proposal makes it sound like a giveaway program, charity.  I really think it should be positioned within a strategy that corresponds to the realities of community groups – they are in motion, developing and expanding their use of technology—but need that bootstrap in order to do that development.

2. Extendable I-Net

You mention in one bullet point that you want to require TCI to make their 4 hubs accessible to community groups for connection. [Is “collocation” a word?  Is it suppose to be co-location? ] Yet, later you mention only the 140 public sites, you fail to include the 4 TCI hubs in this number.  You may want to reiterate this here.

“This means that reasonable charges would be assessed to community groups to cover the ongoing costs...”  What ongoing costs?  The proposal does not define those.  Whether you know the amounts or not, it should specify or delineate the nature of those ongoing costs.

In terms of easy reading and understanding, I suggestion you have a separate section that deals with implementing and managing the community connections and the I-Net stuff.  In this section you could propose that a part of the I-Net management entity include a community arm that establishes and manages the criteria, procedures and policies by which community groups are selected for cable modems and connection to the I-Net.  This same group could help define the expectations and requirements for I-Net institutions for providing access to community groups.  We are basically talking about an new public access entity.  I think you can delineate these functions and the tasks of these functions and leave open the decision about whether a current group will do this or whether a new entity needs to be decided.  However, we need to determine HOW that decision will be made.  If the Working Group is given the authority to make this decision, then community groups need to be better represented.  I am working to organize regular gatherings for the Regional CTCNet, it is possible that this group could provide the input and help make these decisions, providing liaison or staff to the I-Net management group.

Nitpicks:

I suggest you always refer to the Working Group as the Working Group rather than the Group.  Be consistent so there is no room for confusion as to whom you are referring to.

Under Background on the Working Group

1st para: verb tense is wrong— should be “have” rather than “has” I believe.

4th para: you may want to consider putting “hired by the City...with TCI” in parenthesis.

Under Community uses beyond those of traditional I-Nets

3rd para: first sentence is awkward, sort of reads that I-Nets replace at higher prices. 
4th para: last sentence: include schools with libraries & museums.

Under (1)Free cable modems and services...

2nd bullet point: “Community groups would have the right...”  I suggest that you specify the other side of this “right” which is not stated anywhere in the proposal, that: “I-Net institutions have the responsibility to provide access to community groups following whatever procedure and policy is developed to manage such access.  This responsibility is part of the agreement/contract into which an I-Net institutions enters when becoming an I-Net backbone.”  ALSO, I find the term I-Net participant confusing.  Aren’t community groups who gain access via an I-Net institution an I-Net participant?  You might want to differentiate the backbone I-Net institutions from others or find a term that really specifies this role/function.