---

THE CWEIS INITIATIVE:
PUBLIC BROADCASTING’S VENTURE INTO COMMUNITY NETWORKS

Philip A. Thompsen
West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Abstract. This article examines the Community-Wide Education and Information Service (CWEIS), an initiative of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that provided grants to public broadcasting organizations for developing community networks (community-oriented on-line information and communication services). The initiative funded twelve such community networking projects from 1994 to 1997. This article describes how each of the CWEIS projects attempted to extend the public interest mission of public broadcasting to cyberspace. Five public interest goals of the initiative were identified: (1) enhancing diversity, (2) expanding access, (3) promoting community, (4) advancing education and (5) fostering the public sphere. Results indicated that while there were some notably successful projects, the overall performance of the CWEIS initiative was uneven. It is argued that the CWEIS projects that pursued a "free-net" model of providing publicly accessible communication services were most successful in advancing the public interest.

It may be an understatement to call the 1990s a difficult decade for public broadcasting. Government support was declining (Burd, 1995), audience share was shrinking (Avery, 1993), and public sentiment became increasingly ambivalent toward the fate of public broadcasting (O'Gara, 1995). Public broadcasting faced persistent charges of bias, especially from those on the political right (Horowitz, 1992), and observers from both the left and the right panned the increasing commercialization of this ostensibly noncommercial medium (Blumler, 1993; Hoynes, 1994; Jarvik, 1997; Rowland, 1993). Critics have argued that public broadcasting is an anachronism of a bygone era, a bureaucratically burdened solution to a problem that no longer exists. Even among its most ardent supporters there has been a growing fear that public broadcasting has trapped itself into a desperate Faustian bargain with big business and big government to survive at any cost, even at the cost of the ideals that created public broadcasting in the first place.

These ideals, forcefully articulated by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television (1967), include increasing diversity of content, expanding access to technology, educating the citizenry, facilitating localism and community, and advancing the public sphere. While public broadcasting has struggled in the past quarter century to live up to these lofty goals, these very same ideals are increasingly promoted by champions of newer communication technologies. Ithiel de Sola Pool (1983) declared new communication media to be "technologies of freedom" that will "allow for more knowledge, easier access, and freer speech than were ever enjoyed before" (p.251). Christopher Arterton (1987) spoke of a "teledemocracy," where ubiquitous communication networks enable a modern realization of the enlightenment dream of democracy "in which technology is used to underwrite representative processes and a pluralist conception of political interest" (p. 204). George Gilder (1990) predicted the convergence of telecommunications and computers will "enrich and strengthen democracy" (p. 18). Nicholas Negroponte (1995) celebrated the "empowering nature of being digital" (p. 231). Mitch Kapor (1993) proclaimed the tremendous potential of the Internet for a Jeffersonian revolution. Howard Rheingold (1993) argued that computer-mediated "[v]irtual communities could help citizens revitalize democracy" (p. 276).

The rapidly developing web of computer-mediated communication networks may indeed represent a promising opportunity for giving all people a voice in the modern marketplace of ideas, enabling truly democratic participation in the governance of the commonwealth. Yet for such a democratic information infrastructure to arise, it must be properly designed to promote the free flow of information, and protected from undue influence by commerce and politics. Just as the ideals of public broadcasting have been thwarted in the past quarter century by economic and political forces, the once noncommercial flavor of computer-mediated communication networks has dramatically changed in recent years, as businesses increasingly use the Internet for "electronic commerce" and web sites as advertising vehicles. And just as the Federal Communications Commission has designated a portion of broadcasting spectrum as noncommercial, it may be time to consider whether it is in the public interest to preserve a "public lane on the information superhighway" (Thompsen, 1997).

This is precisely what Tom Grundner (1993a) has argued for years. Grundner is founder of the Cleveland Free-Net, one of the most well-known community computer networks in the country. He also founded the National Public Telecommunications Network (NPTN), an organization that sought to establish other Free-Nets throughout the world, and was fairly successful at doing so until financial problems caused it to declare bankruptcy in late 1996. An NPTN mission statement expressly compared Free-Nets to public broadcasting:

The concept behind NPTN is not new. You are probably familiar with National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting on TV. To understand NPTN, simply substitute community computer systems for radio and television stations, and you have the core of what we hope to accomplish. (Kurilec, 1996)

Grundner has tried to put his idea of a "Corporation for Public Cybercasting" before Congress, arguing that America needs "an institution that will do for this medium what the Corporation for Public Broadcasting did for public radio and public television" (Abernathy, 1995).

The CWEIS Initiative

Congress has not moved to change CPB's name, but the Corporation for Public Broadcasting may have been moved by Grundner's arguments. In July 1993, the CPB Board of Directors approved the Community-Wide Education and Information Service (CWEIS) initiative, public broadcasting's first and, to date, largest effort to extend its mission into community networks. By January 1994, public broadcasters in 38 states had proposed 90 different CWEIS projects. On April 18, 1994, twelve of these projects were awarded CWEIS grants (see Table 1). At the awards ceremony marking this event, Bob Coonrod (1994), who at that time was Executive Vice President of the CPB, began with these words:

Today is a special moment for public broadcasting. As much as any other event or program, it marks the transformation of public radio and public television into public telecommunications. It signifies our own convergence-a convergence of technology, programming and public service that will bring education and information services directly to homes and schools.

It was indeed a special moment for public broadcasting. For in essence, Coonrod was announcing a new addition to the public broadcasting family. The "convergence of technology, programming and public service" Coonrod was referring to had yielded a third communication medium, one that was officially being recognized with a major infusion of cash from the CPB's coffers. This third medium would also be recognized in the CWEIS press release, which referred to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as "a private, nonprofit corporation that oversees the growth of taxpayer-supported public radio, television and on-line services for the American people" (Bunton, 1994). Coonrod stated in this press release that "the Corporation hopes eventually to fund community networking initiatives in every state in the nation." After a quarter century of being the primary recipients of CPB funding, it would now seem that public radio and public television had to share the wealth-or lack of it-with a new sibling: the community network.

Simply put, a community network uses computer and telecommunication technologies to connect the citizens of a community with each other. Community networks typically provide free or low-cost dial-up access lines, so anyone with a computer and modem can connect to the service. Often a community network, or at least part of it, is accessible from a computer connected to the Internet. Many community networks try to help those who wouldn't otherwise have access to a computer by providing public access termin als in libraries, shopping malls and civic centers. Sometimes called a "free-net" or "civic network," a community network typically provides links to community services, access to educational resources, information about local events, opportunities for on-line discussion and some degree of access to Internet resources. As Coonrod described it, a community network:

...is the electronic town square. Imagine taking a class, checking a little league schedule, browsing through a museum exhibit, and arranging a community blood drive-all from your home or school. And all for free.

Free to the user, perhaps, but somebody has to pay the bills. And the CPB, with additional support from the US West Foundation, would ante up nearly $1.4 million in grant money from 1994 to 1997 to help launch the twelve CWEIS projects. If one includes matching funds and in-kind donations, the combined total budget for the initiative was just under $6 million. These amounts pale in comparison to the CPB's total disbursement of $300 million to public broadcasting in 1994. Indeed, the CWEIS grants were mo dest compared to the $79 million awarded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration over the next three years through TIIAP, the Telecommunication Information Infrastructure Assistance Program. But for an organization that had spent its entire existence almost exclusively focused on the technologies of radio and television, the CPB's initiative into community networking was a significant departure from the norm. And for the twelve CWEIS projects, it was also a major venture into the relatively unexplored territory of cyberspace.

The CWEIS Projects

Years have passed since the CWEIS projects began, and the initiative has drawn to a conclusion. But what is that conclusion? Were the projects able to extend the ideals of public broadcasting to community networks? What difficulties did the CWEIS projects encounter? Which projects were the most successful, and why? To answer these questions, a framework for analysis must be advanced, one which articulates the goals of the CWEIS initiative, and more broadly, the goals of public broadcasting.

These goals have twice been articulated by the Carnegie Commission (1967; 1979) and by many other observers of public broadcasting (Avery, 1996; Aufderheide, 1991; Cater & Nyhan, 1976; Friedland, 1995; Hoynes, 1994; McChesney, 1995; Stavitsky, 1994; Twentieth Century Fund, 1993). Generally speaking, the mission of public broadcasting can be distilled to five public interest principles: (1) enhancing diversity of content, (2) expanding access to technology, (3) promoting a sense of community, (4) advancing the education of the citizenry, and (5) fostering the development of the public sphere. These five public interest principles, and especially the goal of fostering the public sphere, have also been raised in discussions of the goals of community networks (Brants, Huizenga & van Meerten , 1996; Calabrese & Borchert, 1996; Friedland, 1996; Keane, 1995; McChesney 1996). These five goals thus form a coherent and relevant analytical framework for evaluating the CWEIS initiative at extending its public service mission to cyberspace.

To assess the success of the CWEIS initiative in advancing these public interest principles, each of the twelve CWEIS projects were examined using multiple research methods, including interviews with project directors, surveys of CWEIS users, site visits, and review of project reports submitted to the CPB. The result of this research yielded extensive case studies of each of the twelve CWEIS projects (Thompsen, 1997). For purposes of this article, these case studies have been condensed into brief descriptions of each of the CWEIS projects. By considering the difficulties and accomplishments of the CWEIS efforts, a tentative picture emerges of what worked and what didn't. Following these descriptions, the article concludes with an assessment of how the projects advanced the five public interest goals identified in the analytical framework.

Fairbanks, Alaska: FairNet

Fairbanks was the smallest community to host a CWEIS project, and it received one of the smallest grants from the CPB. Yet in many respects, FairNet is one of the most successful community networks established by the CWEIS initiative. FairNet provides eight dial-up modem lines, free Internet electronic mail accounts and access to the World Wide Web. FairNet also provides public computer terminals in five locations, where those without a home computer can check their e-mail or surf the web. FairNet has developed an extensive community information database and a community events bulletin board and web site (http://www.fairnet.org/). Local government and school district meeting agendas are posted on FairNet, as are local job postings. Interactive forums encourage discussion among local residents on issues of community concern. Students have resources for help on their homework, including a math helpline. FairNet also provides a central place for information about community volunteer opportunities, including, of course, the volunteer positions available at FairNet. Indeed, much of FairNet's success can be attributed to its large and loyal group of volunteers. The outlook for FairNet is positive, at least for the immediate future. FairNet is the only CWEIS project that continues to operate a "free-net" type of community network.

San Francisco, California: San Francisco CityLink Bridge

In sharp contrast to Fairbanks, San Francisco was the largest city to host a CWEIS project. As might be expected in a market this size, and with a strong presence of computer companies, there are a number of projects that seek to expand access to the Internet. The CWEIS project here sought not so much to expand access of individual users to the Internet as to encourage access to educational and community organizations. The most tangible result of the project was its web site (http://www.well.com/user/citylink/). The home page provides an on-line community resource by linking together a variety of web sites in the San Francisco area, including those maintained by city and county government, educational institutions, and local newspapers. The web site produced by the CityLink Bridge Project certainly provides a useful community resource, by linking together a number of diverse on-line services. But it is a stretch to call this collection of web pages a community network. There was no free dial-up access to the service and no free electronic mail accounts for the general public. The CityLink Bridge Project created a broad partnership of community organizations with public broadcasters for the development of on-line resources, but since this project received the largest CWEIS grant, one might have hoped for more tangible results.

Denver/Boulder, Colorado: COnNECT

The COnNECT (Colorado Online Network Educating Communities Today) project gave a handful of teachers at five rural Colorado schools free Internet accounts, provided training on the use of Internet resources, and encouraged them to participate in on-line discussions to share ideas about how to use the Internet in their teaching. The project also developed a web page with a variety of links to educational resources (http://bcn.boulder.co.us/education/connect/center.html). COnNECT has ceased to exist as a formal project, although some of the partnerships created by the project continue on an informal basis. The project did not create a new community network, although it did work with a number of organizations involved in community networking in Colorado, including the Denver Free-Net and the Boulder Community Network.

Evansville, Indiana: WNIN ONLINE

The CWEIS project in Evansville was the first project to put a new community network into operation. WNIN ONLINE was launched in October 1994. The quick start was due in part to a very clear, narrowly defined project: setting up a free community-oriented computer bulletin board service, or BBS, that could be accessed by anyone with a computer and a modem. Although this was the smallest CWEIS grant awarded, it nevertheless paid for eight incoming telephone lines, eight modems, a computer and BBS software. This was the only project that includes the call letters of the station in the project's title, which is appropriate, given the central role WNIN played in the development and administration of the project. While many of the CWEIS projects involved partnership arrangements in which the public broadcaster subcontracted much of the technical work of running a community network, WNIN handled most of the technical details in-house. This close connection to the public broadcaster may account for the distinct ive presence of public broadcasting content on the service, including program schedules, transcripts and membership information. This CWEIS project has arguably been a successful one: in three years of operation, it handled nearly 400,000 calls and over one-and-a-half million e-mail messages for the people of Evansville. But it may be a victim of its quick start, having embraced early on a BBS architecture, a rapidly aging model for community networking. The text-based interface and the lack of direct I nternet and World Wide Web access makes WNIN ONLINE an incomplete community network by today's standards.

Boston, Massachusetts: MetroBoston CWEIS

The MetroBoston CWEIS project began with a collection of community web pages on the WGBH web server (none of which are currently available). The pages included links to adult education and literacy programs, library resources, employment and career information, health services, and city government. Unlike some CWEIS projects, however, the Boston effort went beyond the development of a community web site to expand public access to information technology. The project developed an audiotext service and a f ax-back system, where users could retrieve information of public interest without a computer. Free public access to the Internet was provided at a small number of participating community centers. Although the project did not create a free-net type of community network along the lines of FairNet, it pursued some unique efforts at expanding diversity of access to information technology.

Detroit, Michigan: Michigan Comnet

One of the major accomplishments of the Michigan Comnet project was the establishment of public access computer sites in nine Detroit neighborhoods. Computers and modems were provided to community organizations to access the Internet, send and receive electronic mail, and maintain information databases on the Internet. Comnet provided training to individuals at the participating neighborhood organizations, coordinated an ongoing series of user computer literacy workshops, and encouraged the sharing of computer knowledge through volunteer mentors. The public broadcasting partner, WTVS, has not been a driving force in the development of Comnet, and it is difficult to conclude this project has genuinely helped public broadcasting extend its mission into community networks. Nevertheless, Comnet appears to have forged useful connections among the nonprofit service sector in Michigan, and it continues to occasionally update its web site (http://comnet.org/).

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota: MN Online/The River

The project in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area combined two separate grant applicants, who essentially split the grant rather than merge their efforts. As a result, the Twin Cities area had two CWEIS projects-MN Online and The River (formerly CityTalk)-each with a unique focus. MN Online is a community-oriented web site (http://www.mnonline.org/). It bills itself as the "information connection to Minnesotans, their friends and neighbors, and Minnesota-based resources for the arts and sciences, learning, community services and government." Each week, MN Online puts up a new home page, laid out like a weekly magazine, complete with headlines, photographs and catchy graphics. One of the more popular services available on MN Online is irreverently named "Uffda!" (a Minnesotan expression roughly translated as "Yahoo!"). "Uffda!" is a search engine for finding Minnesota information resources, and reportedly is more accurate and extensive than the national search engines. In general, MN Online's approach to community networking reflects a focus on content; it provides Minnesotans and others with an interest in Minnesota an attractive on-line resource.

By contrast, the River Project's approach to community networking focused on expanding diversity of access. It provided individuals and organizations in the Minneapolis area with low-cost (but not free) dial-up Internet access. The River Project also helped nonprofit organizations develop their own web sites, by hosting web pages on their server (http://www.mtn.org/) and providing training in web page authoring. The River Project relies heavily on volunteers, who provide on-line help to users and teach regularly scheduled classes on computers and the Internet.

These two CWEIS projects vividly demonstrate two very different approaches to community networking. MN Online focused on providing on-line information about the community, while the River Project focused on getting the community on-line. These two approaches can be seen in other CWEIS projects, some of which adopted the former model and some the latter. A few projects tried to combine the two models, but the divergent goals of the two approaches can be difficult to balance. In the case of the Minnesota CWEIS effort, the two approaches were kept separate, allowing both "halves" of the project to concentrate on their complementary missions.

Lincoln, Nebraska: NebraskaNet

The Nebraska CWEIS project started out with a very ambitious objective. A central goal of the original proposal was to provide residents of rural Nebraska a local toll-free access number for Internet access. Three communities-Lincoln, Chadron and Cambridge-were selected as pilot cities to test this idea. Although residents initially greeted the plan with enthusiasm, it was soon discovered that providing free Internet access, especially in the rural areas, was beyond the scope of the project's budget. It also created some friction with local telephone companies and Internet service providers who didn't appreciate what they perceived as government-sponsored competition. As a result, the project reduced its ambitions of expanding access to the Internet, and focused more attention on developing an on-line information resource. NebraskaNet produced a small web site (http://nebraskanet.unl.edu:2025/) with links to the pilot communities, educational institutions, local businesses and state government agencies. But this web site itself offered very little original content, consisting mainly of "link pages"-logically arranged collections of links to other web sites. Although there might be some value in providing such a resource, the project fell far short of the vision originally proposed to the CPB.

Omaha, Nebraska: Omaha Free-Net

Although Minnesota had two grant proposals merged into one, Nebraska is the only state to have two separate recipients of CWEIS grants. The other CWEIS project in Nebraska was sponsored by KVNO-FM, the University of Nebraska at Omaha's NPR-affiliated radio station. Omaha Free-Net was the only CWEIS project actively managed by a single public radio station. Although a wide variety of community organizations provided content for the Omaha Free-Net project, the design, development and daily management of the project was largely an effort of KVNO, with technical support from the computer services department at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The Omaha Free-Net was the only CWEIS project to formally affiliate with the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), the community networking organization that evolved from the work of Tom Grundner at the Cleveland Free-Net. Because of this affiliation, it was the only CWEIS project that could legally use "Free-Net" in its name, as NPTN held the servicemark rights to the term. Formally introduced to the public in August 1995, the Omaha Free-Net clearly embraced the Free-Net model, providing everyone free dial-up modem access to a menu-driven community information service. For an annual fee of $60, registered users could also have Internet e-mail accounts. The community information on Omaha Free-Net was also accessible via Telnet, a common Internet software program for accessing remote computer systems. Omaha Free-Net's web site (http://www.omahafreenet.org/) included links to the service's content providers, many of which had web pages housed on the Omaha Free-Net server. The service also provided public access terminals in local libraries and community centers. But shortly after its first anniversary of operation, KVNO reached the difficult but financially necessary decision to discontinue Omaha Free-Net. While the project arguably provided a valuable community resource, it was unable to generate enough user subscriptions to pay its bills. With the expiration of the CWEIS grant, and only modest outside funding, the project became a drain on the already strained budget of KVNO. Further, as one employee commented, "it became difficult to see Omaha Free-Net as part of the central mission of a public radio station." It is unfortunate that Omaha Free-Net was unable to find sustainable funding, for this CWEIS project showed great promise as a model for public broadcasting's involvement in community networks.

Columbia, South Carolina: MidNet

An even more melancholy success story emerges from the CWEIS project in Columbia, South Carolina. Like the project in Omaha, MidNet had a successful life during the CWEIS grant period-even more successful than Omaha FreeNet. Although not technically a "Free-Net," as it was not an NPTN affiliate, MidNet nevertheless patterned itself after the free-net model, following in particular the example of Tallahassee Free-Net. Launched on February 14, 1995, MidNet provided more free services to more people than any other CWEIS project. During its two years of operation, over 14,000 residents of the Columbia area (which has a population of approximately 300,000) had become registered users of MidNet. The significant community impact of MidNet led Home Office Computing to praise the project, citing MidNet a major reason for Columbia's ranking among their list of top ten "small-business friendly" cities in America (Stansell, 1995). MidNet's service was first class by free-net standards. It provided the citizens of Columbia free Internet e-mail accounts, dial-up access to a pool of 25 modems, an extensive database of community organizations, a telephone support hotline and access to a variety of Internet resources. The project developed an extensive web site (http://www.midnet.sc.edu/), and helped over 150 local non-profit organizations develop web sites of their own, many of which were housed on MidNet's server. Over 500 people attended MidNet-sponsored Internet training courses. And the project launched an innovative program for recycling older computers, giving away over 100 computers to nonprofit organizations. But perhaps MidNet was a victim of its own success. With the CWEIS grant money running out, 25 modem lines to support, and increasing Internet access costs, MidNet could not continue without additional support. By early 1997, MidNet had disconnected all of its modem lines. All that remains of this otherwise very successful CWEIS project is its web site, which continues to provide free web page hosting for local nonprofit organizations.

Norfolk, Virginia: CommunityLink

CommunityLink was one of the first CWEIS projects to provide public access terminals. In early 1995, two Internet-connected computers were placed in the Norfolk Public Library. With additional funding from a separate federal grant, additional computers were provided to branch libraries throughout the region. Residents could "surf the web" from these computers, using the CommunityLink web page (http://www.communitylink.org/) as a starting point. This web site provides a comprehensive collection of community information, and has helped accelerate the development of an on-line presence for a large number of public service organizations in the Hampton Roads area. The project did not provide free public dial-up access, but did provide modem lines for content providers to update their web pages. While it is likely this web site will continue in the near future, it is less clear whether CommunityLink will continue to evolve as a valuable community resource.

Seattle, Washington: Puget Soundings

The CWEIS project in the Seattle area was perhaps the most unique. While some CWEIS projects tried to start a community network, Puget Soundings didn't need to, as a thriving one already existed in Seattle. The Seattle Community Network (http://www.scn.org), started by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility in 1993, is one of the largest community networks in the nation, and is often cited as a model for other community networks (Schuler, 1996). So KCTS-TV, the principal administrator of Puget Soundings, invited the Seattle Community Network to come on board as a partner in the project. They worked together to forge innovative links between public broadcast programming and on-line communication technology. Over the course of the project, a total of 25 television broadcasts on KCTS incorporated an on-line component. Viewers of 9TeenTalk, for example, could interact with the program hosts by participating in an on-line computer conference before and after the broadcast. A statewide simulcast of Ask the Governor provided Washington residents the opportunity to submit questions and comments by e-mail before the broadcast, and have them addressed by the governor on the air. Students watched how state lawmakers tried to balance the budget on State Budget 101, and then tried balancing it themselves in a series of computer exercises developed to complement the broadcast. Puget Soundings' approach to integrating public broadcasting with community networking seems promising. The use of community networks as a vehicle for audience participation in public broadcast programs may serve to expand public interest in both community networking and public broadcasting. Although Puget Soundings did not receive the largest CWEIS grant, its budget was the largest (over $1.2 million), reflecting a very high percentage of in-kind contributions by the project partners. This level of financial commitment, combined with innovative thinking and a genuine focus on public service, helped make Puget Soundings a noteworthy CWEIS project.

Did CWEIS Deliver?

Each of the twelve CWEIS projects adopted different strategies in developing community networks. Some approaches appeared successful, others less so. But why? How are we to assess the success of CWEIS? One could adopt the position that the purpose of CWEIS was to launch new community networks, along the lines of the free-nets Tom Grundner of NPTN had been advocating. A close reading of the CPB's CWEIS Solicitation Guidelines (1993) suggests that this was indeed the goal of the initiative. For example, the Guidelines stated that

a community-wide education and information service (CWEIS) includes information and communications services provided on a "host" computer to which several modems and telephone lines have been connected. CWEIS software supports basic functions like electronic mail and conferencing, information file management, and the execution of other special purpose programs, all under a simple menu-driven interface. Individuals in the community can connect to the host computer, using a personal computer or terminal co nnected to a telephone line through a modem, to access information stored on a host computer, and to send and receive electronic mail and participate in conferences. (p. 6)

The Cleveland Free-Net was specifically cited in the Guidelines as an example of a CWEIS in operation, as was CapAccess, a free-net type of community network started by public broadcaster WETA in Washington, D.C. The perspective that CWEIS was an attempt to launch free-nets was also evident in the CWEIS press release (Bunton, 1994), which repeatedly used the phrase "free public access" to describe the community networks envisioned by the initiative, and stated that "twelve powerful community-wide networks will emerge."

By this criterion, the initiative did not fare well. By the end of 1994, only one of the twelve projects had launched a new community network-WNIN Online in Evansville. By the end of 1995, there were 2 more CWEIS-sponsored community networks in operation: the Omaha Free-Net and Columbia's MidNet. One more community network, FairNet, got off the ground in 1996. Of these four community networks, only FairNet continues to operate today as a free public access dial-up service. From the free-net perspective on community networks, then, FairNet appears to be the most successful CWEIS project.

But it may be misleading to tally the score on CWEIS as one success out of twelve. To be fair, not all of the projects set out to create free-nets. Some hitched their efforts to an existing community network, seeking to build on what was already in place. Most of the projects created web sites, and some made expanding the web presence of community organizations a major focus. Many of the projects provided public access terminals. One project concentrated on getting teachers to use the Internet, and ano ther linked on-line computer conferences with public television programs. All of the CWEIS projects tried to pursue some vision of community networking for the public good.

Further, the free-net model of community networking may be out of date. As mentioned earlier, NPTN, the organization Tom Grundner founded to promote the free-net concept, has declared bankruptcy. There are still many free-nets in existence; the Organization for Community Networking listed 190 such networks on their web site (http://ofcn.org/) in August 1998, with the majority of these (157) located in the United States. Yet there seems to be a growing difference between the aging, text-based, menu-driven software typically used by free-nets and the multimedia-enhanced web browsers, such as Netscape and Internet Explorer, which are becoming a standard of the on-line experience. Such advancements in networking interfaces will undoubtedly continue, forcing many free-nets to make a difficult choice: either significantly upgrade their services at considerable expense, or be increasingly seen as a second-class substitute for the kind of on-line experience most people enjoy. As one person recently put it in a message to the Communet e-mail discussion list, the "days of dial-up ASCII are long gone." The aging of the free-net model may have been one reason why so many CWEIS projects developed web-based services.

Still, there is an important difference between the free-net and web models of community networking. The former focuses on access, the latter on content. Free-nets expand the population of the on-line community, by providing free dial-up lines and public access terminals. Community web sites expand the diversity of on-line content, by facilitating web page development and providing links to community information. To be sure, the two models are not exclusive: free-nets also work to expand on-line content, and many community web sites try to encourage access. The distinction is one of emphasis, presumably reflecting an assessment of how to best serve the public interest. Perhaps one should judge the success of the CWEIS initiative, then, by considering the public interest goals advanced, rather than compare it to a vision of community networking that is over a decade old (Grundner, 1993b).

To some extent, all of the CWEIS projects succeeded in advancing the five public interest goals of public broadcasting mentioned earlier: (1) enhancing diversity, (2) expanding access, (3) promoting community, (4) advancing education and (5) fostering the public sphere. Specific activities engaged in by the CWEIS projects can be identified which advance each of these five goals. Table 2 identifies twenty-five specific activities, representing five activities for each of the five goals, and tallies the tot al "score" for each of the CWEIS projects. None of the projects engaged in all of these activities, but when taken as a whole, there is evidence the initiative promoted the ideals of access, diversity, education, community and the public sphere. This analysis also suggests that the most successful projects were those who pursued the free-net model of community networking.

First, those projects that adopted the free-net model of community networking have a credible claim of expanding access. By establishing free dial-up modem lines and providing public access terminals, on-line resources were made available to those who might not otherwise have access. Second, those projects that adopted an information service model fostered the ideal of expanding diversity of content. The most commonly used vehicle for advancing this ideal was the community web site. By helping community organizations develop web pages, hosting those web pages on a central server, and providing a home page of links to community information, these CWEIS projects sought to expand the diversity of on-line resources. Third, all of the projects devoted some attention to education. This may have reflected the very clear requirement of the CWEIS grants that each project include an educational component. The "E" in CWEIS, in fact, was specifically added to the title of the initiative (which had earlier been cal led the Community Networking Initiative) to emphasize the importance of educational goals. The most common strategy used by the projects was the "homework helpline," which typically provided on-line resources designed to support K-12 instruction, particularly in math and science. Fourth, many of the projects worked to deepen a sense of community in local life. All of the projects had some impact in their communities; a few, such as MidNet and FairNet, made a significant impact. WNIN OnLine's lack of Int ernet connectivity may have been a technical deficiency, but it also served to emphasize the local service area, both in content and in access. Puget Soundings developed innovative links between on-line and broadcast forums, extending the reach of programming designed to engage the community in rational deliberation.

Finally, the CWEIS initiative worked to foster the public sphere, encouraging greater citizen participation in civic life by providing people with expanded opportunities to engage each other in rational deliberation on issues of common concern. This may be the most important goal of the CWEIS initiative, and of community networking in general. Schuler (1996) argues that "[t]he most important aspect of community networks...is their immense potential for increasing participation in community affairs, a potential far greater than that offered by traditional media such as newspapers, radio or television" (p.25). As Schuler suggests, this potential for increasing citizen participation in public dialogue is a key distinction between community networks and the broadcast media. Call-in talk shows and audience participation programs may provide limited opportunities for citizen involvement in civic affairs, but the aim remains fixed on transmitting content to a relatively passive audience. Community networks can enable a more active audience, providing people with the technological capacity to interact with their elected leadership and their fellow citizens in thoughtful dialogue.

Taken as a whole, the CWEIS initiative was at least modestly successful in advancing the public interest in cyberspace. But old habits die hard. It may be difficult for public broadcasters, conditioned to their roles of cultural gatekeeper and program producer, to exploit the unique strengths of community networks. It may be much easier for public broadcasters to see computer networks as another vehicle for transmitting the products of public broadcasting, of sending messages rather than enabling dialogu e. This seems to have been the case at most of the CWEIS projects. Attempts to expand access were targeted more to content providers than to the public at large. The voices of community organizations were given preference over the voices of citizens. More often than not, the focus was on production, not participation. Of course, there were a few genuine efforts made to provide opportunities for people to engage one another in thoughtful consideration of the issues of the day. But just providing the me ans may not be enough. Before public broadcasting, or community networking, or some other technology yet to be invented, can lead to a genuine renewal of public participation in civic life, we must move beyond a focus on technology to a focus on people. This may be the hardest lesson learned from the CWEIS initiative, and the most important: community networking isn't so much about networking people with computers as it is about building communities through computer networks. The CWEIS initiative vividly demonstrates how difficult that task is.

Abernathy, J. (1995, February). Creating the PBS of the Internet. PC World, 62-64.

Arterton, F. C. (1987). Teledemocracy: Can technology protect democracy? Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aufderheide, P. (1991). Public television and the public sphere. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 168-183.

Avery, R. K. (Ed.). (1993). Public service broadcasting in a multichannel environment: The history and survival of an ideal. New York: Longman.

Avery, R. K. (1996). Contemporary public telecommunications research: Navigating the sparsely settled terrain. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40, 132-139.

Blumler, J. (1993). Meshing money with mission: Purity versus pragmatism in public broadcasting. European Journal of Communication, 8, 403-424.

Brants, K., Huizenga, M., & Marteen, R. V. (1996). The new canals of Amsterdam: An exercise in local electronic democracy. Media, Culture & Society, 18, 233-247.

Bunton, J. (1994, April 18). CPB initiates free public access to information superhighway, funding 12 community networks (Press release). Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Burd, S. (1995, February 3). Colleges' public broadcasting stations fear loss of U.S. support. Chronicle of Higher Education, A28.

Calabrese, A., & Borchert, M. (1996). Prospects for electronic democracy in the United States: Rethinking communication and social policy. Media, Culture & Society, 18, 249-268. Carnegie Commission on Educational Television. (1967). Public Television: A Program for Action. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.

Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting. (1979). A public trust. New York: Bantam Books.

Cater, D., & Nyhan, M. J. (1976). The future of public broadcasting. New York: Praeger

Coonrod, R. (1994, April 18). Remarks for the announcement of the Community-Wide Education and Information Service Initiative. Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (1993). Community-Wide Education and Information Services: Solicitation guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.

Friedland, L. A. (1995). Public television as public sphere: The case of the Wisconsin Collaborative Project. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39, 147-176.

Friedland, L. A. (1996). Electronic democracy and the new citizenship. Media, Culture & Society, 18, 185-212.

Gilder, G. (1990). Life after television: The coming transformation of media and American life. Knoxville, TN: Whittle.

Grundner, T. M. (1993a). Free-netting: The development of free, public-access, community computer systems. In B. Aboba (Ed.), The online user's encyclopedia: Bulletin boards and beyond, (pp. 517-519). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Grundner, T. M. (1993b). How the National Public Telecomputing Network came to be. In B. Aboba (Ed.), The online user's encyclopedia: Bulletin boards and beyond, (pp. 521-526). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Horowitz, D. (1992, December). Radicals rule PBS documentaries. The Independent, 28-31.

Hoynes, W. (1994). Public television for sale: Media, the market, and the public sphere. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jarvik, L. (1997). PBS: Behind the screen. Rocklin, CA: Prima.

Kapor, M. (1993, July/August). Where is the digital highway really heading?: The case for a Jeffersonian information policy. Wired, 1, 53-59, 94.

Keane, J. (1995). Structural transformations of the public sphere. The Communication Review, 1, 1-22.

Kurilec, J. M. (1996). Community computing and the NPTN [On-line]. Available: http://www.nptn.org:80/about.fn/whatis.fn.

McChesney, R. W. (1995, December). Public broadcasting in the age of communication revolution. Monthly Review, 47, 1-19.

McChesney, R. W. (1996). The Internet and U.S. communication policy-making in historical and critical perspective. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 98-124.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.

O'Gara, G. (1995, February 27). Biting the handout that feeds me. Newsweek, 16.

Pool, I. d. S. (1983). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Rowland, W. D., Jr. (1993). Public service broadcasting in the United States: Its mandate, institutions, and conflicts. In R. K. Avery (Ed.), Public service broadcasting in a multichannel environment: The history and survival of an ideal, (pp. 157-194). New York: Longman.

Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Stansell, K. (1995, December). Home-based havens: Which places in America are most small business friendly? Home Office Computing, 73-78.

Stavitsky, A. G. (1994). The changing conception of localism in U.S. public radio. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38, 19-33.

Thompsen, P. A. (1997). Toward a public lane on the information superhighway: A media performance analysis of the Community-Wide Education and Information Service Initiative. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (8).

Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Public Television. (1993). Quality Time? New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.

This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).