FROM VTR TO CYBERSPACE: Jefferson, Gramsci & the Electronic Commons by Mark Surman (msurman@io.org) ************************************ 6. STRATEGIES FOR A NEW ELECTRONIC COMMONS It is very likely that the new broadband networks _ like cable in the past _ will develop to serve the goals of consumerism. But it is important to remember that a grassroots movement was able to carve out at least some form of electronic commons and some space for Gramscian activist projects within the earlier commercial cable jungle. According to Frank Spiller, the most important factor in getting the community channel embedded into Canada's cable regulations was "...an intense public lobby, so large that the CRTC could not ignore it." A lobby of equal size, loudness and intensity could certainly develop to ensure that an open public space is available North America's "superhighways". To make this happen, those who want a new electronic commons have three main tasks ahead of them: the construction of a mass movement built on alliances between diverse groups; the creation of the human centred institutions _ both within and outside the new network _ that will be necessary to sustain an egalitarian and truly accessible infosphere; and an intervention into the regulatory processes of the countries in which the new movement is organized. The language, myths and visions of a Jeffersonian electronic commons _ the most crucial part of any movement _ have already started to spread widely. Where community video and the Challenge for Change newsletter spread grassroots media philosophy in the 1970's, the Internet and Wired Magazine are doing the same today. As something that people are already using and enjoying, the Internet has incredible mythical power. People are telling their friends about the info-freedom that it brings. They are also making new friends and creating new virtual communities. It is unlikely that the people who are using the Internet would be willing to either give up this way of communicating or see it limited to text as broadband, multimedia networks develop. This kind of attachment to a way of communicating, to a way of being, could be a powerful force in bringing people together to ensure that the Internet model makes it to the broadband networks. Also, more commercial media outlets like Wired can play a significant role in developing the myths of a new democratic information landscape. Amidst all of its hardware reviews and techno-fetishism, Wired spouts the Jeffersonian ideals of an electronic commons to over 100,000 readers. While most of the myths and ideas that flow from cyberspace and fill the pages of Wired take a Jeffersonian slant, there are also many 1990's access advocates that embrace the Gramscian spirit of Challenge for Change. Paper Tiger's Staking A Claim In Cyberspace program envisions an acivist electronic democracy that opens up spaces for marginalized communities. And activists who set up the feminist, environmental and other social change listservs, newsgroups and gophers on the Internet are definitely contributing to an electronically networked community future. These visions of an activist, community-focused future must exist alongside _ not instead of _ myths of a Jeffersonian common. Some of organizations that could form the nucleus of such a movement have already started to take shape. In the US, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility are organizing conferences, writing articles, running listservs and lobbying government to ensure that cyberspace is public space. An organization called the Coalition for Public Information has formed to pursue similar goals in Canada. On a more grassroots level, people are forming small groups in towns and cities all over North America to build FreeNets. These groups are a movement in and of themselves. One limitation of the organizations that have formed so far, is that they are almost solely made up of people who already understand or use The Net _ grassroots computer activists, software designers and information professional like librarians. The "already Net literate" bias of these groups is at this point a major roadblock to the development of a movement for a new electronic commons _ people with other backgrounds and experiences need to be involved. One important constituency that could be brought into such a movement is the large number of people who were initially involved in Challenge for Change and the early community channel. These are people who have both a passion for "people's media" and a great deal of experience finding the human, financial and political resources necessary to build an electronic commons. People who are currently producing non-computer grassroots media also need to get connected into this movement. Activist video makers, community radio producers, community channel facilitators, artists, journalists and the independent print media all have a stake in what the electronic commons looks like. They also have experience in their own fields that can be added to the experiences of the computer people and information providers who currently make up the membership of the organizations listed above. In order to attract these people to a new movement, discussion of info-access issues should not be limited to high-tech forums like the Internet, or to computer hip magazines like Wired. The ideals of the electronic commons and of visions of the social change media institutions that we could build on such a commons need to be distributed by computer, poster, pamphlet, TV show, radio program, book and any other media that we can think of. To paraphrase interactive video artist Nancy Paterson: "Stay multi-format. Use video, use CD-ROM, use computer networks _ use T-shirts."> As a movement emerges, it is essential that it develop a multiplicity of visions that concretely describe what a new public access systems could look like _ a wish list, so to speak. This is Garth Graham's "wetware for a national dream". In terms of the actual design of broadband public access system, I personally envision a multimedia FreeNet that would borrow from the experience of both community television and current community computer networks. Community television in Canada provides the perfect model for the funding of public communications projects. The government makes the people who profit from information distribution pay for a public system. FreeNets offer an excellent model for community-run, two-way communications systems where everyone is a sender and receiver of information. To combine these two elements on a broadband network that carries video, sound and all other media would make for an almost ideal electronic commons. As technology progressed, such multimedia FreeNets would allow community members to put their videotapes, CD ROMs, radio shows, etc. onto a community multi-media server. Any other community member would then be able download that information into their home. Although such a vision may sound far fetched compared to the text-centric Internet, it is not an impossibility when you consider the UBI system that Videotron is building. As an example, UBI will have computer servers using CD ROM or some similar format allowing users to randomly access multi-media consumer catalogues. There is no reason that this technology which is being put in place to sell things could not also be used to serve the electronic commons. Such a system might not be able to handle complete community video on demand right from the outset, although this would be the ultimate goal. In the meantime, grassroots multi-media and radio producers could use the community interactive server while video makers would be given additional channels with which to create a more open access space. There would even be the possibility for a near on-demand community video all request channel. On cable systems which plan to use most of their 500 channels to run the same Hollywood movies starting at five minute intervals, freeing up the bandwidth for additional video access channels is not too much to ask for. Of course it is also essential to build support institutions for the electronic commons outside of the network itself, especially if we are to lay the foundations of activist projects and avoid the failings of open access community television. Such institutions would provide basic and computer literacy training, and access to the technology needed to use the electronic commons. Centres like the Playing to Win computer access facility are a step in this direction. As a grander vision, I would like to borrow the concept of the Centre for Appropriate Transportation (CAT) from the alternative transportation movement. CATs are community centres for sustainable technology. In the transportation world, they include bike maintenance training spaces, design studios for people working on human powered transport projects and other facilities that contribute to the development of a non-car culture. For the new public access networks, we could create our own CATs _ Centre's for Appropriate Telecommunication _ that would provide free access to video production equipment, desktop publishing systems, network connected computers, multi-media authoring facilities, literacy classes, technical advice and the like. Such centres could be run in association with the local multi-media FreeNet, using some of the funding provided by the network owners. The fruition of all of these visions will definitely be driven by a great deal of human energy, co-operation and passion. But this human energy must go hand in hand with a regulatory environment that supports the existence of a public space on the new networks. Such regulations are necessary to ensure that network providers like the cable and telephone companies are legally responsible for funding a public space on their systems. In order to get regulations like this put into place, a movement for the creation of public networks will have to identify key moments for intervention into the regulatory process. One such moment in Canada will be upon us in the next few years as the CRTC deals with requests by the telephone companies to carry video. Telephone delivered video is often referred to as "video-dialtone". In the US, the FCC has already made major rulings on video-dialtone, the most significant of which ensures equal access to the system for third-party information suppliers (i.e. people who are not the phone company). It is important that Canadian regulations guarantee the same sort of access if independent film, video and multi-media makers are to develop a market on the "highway". It is even more important that video-dialtone regulations in Canada follow in the footsteps of the cable regulations that require the system owners to spend 5% of revenue on some sort of public access system. This funding is essential both to build systems like the multi-media FreeNet and to ensure that the cable companies are still required to provide some sort of community channel. If the phone companies don't have to fund a public space on the multi-media networks that they are developing, it is likely that the cable companies will be able to get out of their community channel obligations in the name of "fair competition". The frenzy with which big cable companies are swallowing up smaller ones in both Canada and the US provides another regulatory area to watch. In Canada, such transfers of ownership almost always come with a "benefits package". These packages include goodies like updated equipment for community television and independent film funds, which are intended to prove that the cable company is doing something "in the interest of the Canadian people". Although benefit packages are usually designed by the cable company in question, there is no reason that members of the public cannot present the CRTC with requests for additions or changes. Such requests could include extra access channels, fiber optic links between a media arts centre and the community channel master control or special community channel projects in support of marginalized communities. On the sidelines of the regulatory process there are often advisory councils or other such government bodies. These are also excellent places to plant the regulatory seeds of the new public networks. In Canada, the federal government has created an Advisory Council on the Information Highway. Although the council's twenty-nine person membership is dominated by the cable and telephone industries, it also includes the chair of the Coalition for Public Information, the president of the National Capital FreeNet and the president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. These are all people who understand the need for democratic communications and grassroots information systems. It is essential that they hear the opinions of and get support from diverse sectors that support the idea of an electronic commons. With alliances between a movement for democratic networks and the people who work within bodies like the advisory council, and with a clear understanding of when crucial decisions will be made, there is a real possibility of inserting grassroots communications values into the process of broadband network regulation. As we take the crucial steps of developing a new movement, new institutions, and new regulations that guarantee an electronic commons, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that public space on the new broadband networks is too much to ask for. As public access producer Fernando Moreena says in Paper Tiger's Staking a Claim in Cyberspace: "If telephone companies and others are going to be able to develop this electronic highway, then we want electronic parks to go with it, just like any other development. We also want money to grow the grass, to keep the trees and to be able to work with the community." Leaving a space for the public is a matter of course in the development of housing, as it should be in the development of new communications networks. It is also important to remember that a group of grassroots media activists were faced with the same challenges _ building a movement, visioning the future, creating regulations _ twenty years ago. Against great odds, they were able to build community channels across North America. Despite the problems that community television faces, there is a great deal to be learned from these earlier victories. It is also important for activists who are concerned about our mediascape to remember that the creation of an electronic commons or public space on the new networks is not enough in itself. We need to turn back to the Gramscian vision of community television, and look for the places where we can build counter-cultural institutions on the new systems. Looking for these spots is the only way to create a real cultural shift, to create real openings for anyone who wants to speak electronically, as opposed to creating a play-thing for the middle class and the already literate. Finally, we must constantly remind ourselves what this whole grassroots media thing is about _ human beings and community. If we all fall into our computers and stop talking to the people around us, we are wasting our time. If access to the new systems does not include literacy and the demystification of technology, we will have created a system that makes class barriers and cultural exclusions bigger rather than smaller. If we leave people in the South to sit on the periphery of the Net, getting sick as they build computers for the rich, the electronic commons is a failure. As we build a movement for a new electronic commons, we need to remember the primacy of all these things, to remember why we care about information democracy in the first place. ************************************************** For a complete version of this paper -- including pictures, sidebar commentary and a full bibliography -- contact Mark Surman (msurman@io.org) This paper is COPYRIGHT MARK SURMAN (1994). Permission is granted to duplicate, print or repost this paper as long as it is done on a non-commercial (ie. keep it free)and as long as the whole paper is kept intact. **************************************************