Response by Telecommunities Canada to
                   Phase I Submissions Filed Under CRTC
                                PN 1994-130

Executive Summary

Telcommunities Canada (TC) notes that the telecom and broadcast sectors
view themselves as leading changes in the Canadian media environment. We
submit that community data networks are similarly important in the local
diffusion of new media skills, the production of indigenous expression,
and the integration of near and distant interests. Accordingly, our
response to Phase I submissions focuses on the emergence of local
electronic gateways -- also known as Free-Nets -- as a community-based
model for managing the convergence of content issues and carriage
technologies. 
 
Background

Telecommunities Canada is a new organization. In August 1994, more than 40
community networks met in Ottawa to discuss how they could best
participate in a national strategy for the development of electronic
community networking. That meeting lead to the formation of TC and the
establishment of an Interim Board. Since then, Telecommunities Canada's
work has focused on documenting the progress, needs, and concerns of
disparate community networks (a national listing is attached as Appendix
A), and on policy development. TC loosely defines community data networks
as not-for-profit organizations that provide affordable access to
information of local relevance. 

Community-Based Needs

Telecommunities Canada believes that the development of new technological
protocols has to be grounded in shared human experience. Andrew Clements,
for instance, views the challenge facing the Commission and the federal
government as "fostering the social innovations that allow the broadly
beneficial adoption of technologies that are useful"(3). The Inuit
Tapirisat of Canada similarly expresses this position by urging the
Commission to develop measures to ensure that "Inuit and other northerners
obtain the basic human services they require" (14). 
  
These positions negotiate the basic principles of a Canadian
communications system. Their emphasis on the common goodness or value of
technological change and the need to observe the particular needs of
far-flung communities supposes a flexible and accessible means for
conveying and enhancing socio-cultural experience. 

Community Leadership

The Internet -- particularly its local Freenet nodes -- is a contemporary
demonstration of how these objectives are being met. CA*Net observes, for
instance, that the "Internet has grown dramatically not because of huge
amounts of market development dollars or focus groups or advertising but
because it has filled a need for many people" (2). 

The rapid growth of community data networks in Canada signals a local
determination to meet constitutent demands for new information services.
For Frank Spiller, the emergence of this sector expresses community
frustration with traditional access formulas and represents a successful
innovation in media development. 

"While broadcast regulation has become more inflexible in the face of
technological change, the public has been quick to discover ways of
avoiding constraints which limit its access to content and communication.
Nowhere is this more evident in relation to citizen access than in the
unprecedented rise in the use of Freenets and the Internet. The decline of
citizen access on community channels has been matched -- even exceeded --
by the increase in citizen use of computer-based communications" (1)

Community Involvement

Telecommunities Canada sees community networks as stakeholders in the
diffusion of technological innovation and as partners in new media
development. The vision brought forward by the telecommunications and
broadcast sectors invests them with inordinate influence over the form
that the Information Highway will assume and the conditions which will
guide its extension. 

We agree that the Stentor companies will play a "pivotal role in the
communities they serve" (122). Similarly, we acknowledge the significance
of the CCTA's third objective of a Canadian Information Highway,
"providing universal accessibility, while striking a balance to ensure
positive social impacts" (32). Telecommunities Canada observes that each
statement supposes a mechanism for deciding which communities will be
served and how balance is to be achieved. 

The University of Toronto's McLuhan Program suggests a community-based
means for achieving and protecting local access to the information
highway. The CRTC, they write,
 
"must create a regulatory environment which not only allows the creation
of community-oriented services on the Information Highway, but one which
encourages the growth and development of these services. The Commission
must put a regulatory framework in place which makes the support for
certain community services a condition of licence for any developer of
broadband infrastructure...The current, emerging system of community
computer networks should become the basis for these local community
services." (3). 

Community Services

Derrick de Kerckhove and Lise Jeffrey go on to describe eight essential
elements for new media development. In their brief, they define a basic
public service.  TC submits that because the issue of basic service is so
longstanding and so widely disputed, their definition merits further
evaluation by the Commission: 

          1. A Canadian source of news about the nation and the world
          2. A local source of news, weather, events, and information
          3. A comprehensive health care database
          4. A jobs listing
          5. A library and information access gateway
          6. An Education and Training database
          7. A government services and information database
          8. A FreeNet community dialogue network (5)

The Telecommunications Worker's Union goes one step further by calling for
the development of a third "Community Information Network" to augment the
value of local information and reduce dependency on commercial and
government services. "With a focus on the community, and served through
the formation of regional FreeNets with access to the global Internet,
such a network would promote individual and community empowerment." (167)

Community Content

Telecommunities Canada notes that the Order-in-Council which directs this
process and the submissions made by the major stakeholders follow a
traditional interpretation of content development. Stentor, for instance,
defines 'content creators' as "independent film and television producers,
production houses, as well as private and public broadcasters" (113).
Telecommunities Canada believes that excluding community networks from the
"content creation" category marginalizes the significance of their work
and limits the potential for the emergence of new Canadian content. 

Comments filed by the Nechako Access Network, for instance, point to an
opportunity for community-based data networks to "add a new dimension to
the Broadcasting Act by placing 'effective Canadian ownership and control'
at the local level....Like community cable access, community-based data
networks will encourage local involvement in media production" (5).
Similarly, submissions by Warren Langford and Mark Surman call for new
service providers to give something back to the communities they reach
into. The aim of this mechanism is to secure a measure of local autonomy
for community-based channels and networks. 

TC submits that such a framework will encourage innovation and cooperation
among locales and further stimulate demand for access at the network
level. 

Community Access Issues

Telecommunities Canada supports those submissions which emphasize the need
to extend services to communities that are demographically and/or
geographically marginalized. We recognize that access must be both
affordable and timely. 

NAPO, for instance, argues for a broader definition of access for low
income earners. Similarly, TVOntario suggests that affordability is the
basic criterion for building a Canadian Information Highway.  TVO writes
that in the "midst of the creation of history's richest information
resource, we cannot make distinctions between those Canadians who will be
able to use it to access public information and those who will not" (6). 

The Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped (ARCH) - Disabled
Canadians for an Accessible Information Highway -- and the Inuit Tapirisat
of Canada both underscore the urgency of making access available to their
respective constituencies within a reasonable timeframe. For ARCH and ITC,
access has an immediate impact on the lifestyle choices that their publics
can make. 

Telecommunities Canada also recognizes the uneven character of
infrastructural access in Canada. This issue encompasses availability of
specialized training and support, the need for standardized access to
network services, and the significance of private line access within the
local loop -- particularly within rural and remote areas. 

The Government of the Northwest Territories concludes, for instance, that
the development of a knowledge-based industry in the Northwest Territories
and other remote and rural parts of Canada requires extension of
high-speed access" (13). They note that the cost of transmission and low
data reliability are real and significant barriers to sustainable economic
activity in remote communities. 


                                Appendix A: 
                     Canadian Community Data Networks

Yukon

Yukon Net Operating Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

British Columbia

Campbell River Free Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

CIAO Free Net (Trail). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Cranbrook Free-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Ft. St. John Freenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Kitimat Free-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Mount Arrowsmith Free Net Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Nanaimo SchoolsNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Nechako Access Network Organization (Vanderhoof) . . . . . . . . Organizing

Prince George Free-Net Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Quesnel Free-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Rocky Mountain InfoNet (Fernie/Sparwood) . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Sea-to-Sky Free-Net (Squamish/Whistler/Pemberton). . . . . . . .Operational

Valley-Net (Abbotsford/Chilliwack/Mission) . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Vancouver Regional Free-Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Victoria Free-Net (Canada's first Free-Net)  . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Northwest Territories

NTnet (Yellowknife). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Alberta

Calgary Free-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Edmonton Freenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Praxis Free-Net (Medicine Hat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Red Deer FreeNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Saskatchewan                                                               

Great Plains Free-Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Saskatoon Free-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Blue Sky FreeNet of Manitoba (Winnipeg). . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

EastmanNet (Pinawa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Searden Freenet (Sprague). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Ontario

Atikokan Community Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Collingwood Community Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Durham Freenet Inc. (Whitby) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Telecommons Development Group (Guelph) . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Halton Community Network (Oakville). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Hamilton-Wentworth Freenet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Home-net (London). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Lanark County Network Project (Carleton Place) . . . . . . . . . Organizing

National Capital Free-Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Niagara Penninsula Free-Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

North Shore Community Network (Elliot Lake). . . . . . . . . . . Organizing


Ontario continued...

Sarnia Community BBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Sudbury Regional Community Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Toronto Free-Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Wellington County Freespace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Windsor Freenet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

807-City (Thunder Bay) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Qu‚bec

Free-Net Montr‚al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Qu‚bec City FreeNet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

New Brunswick

Fredericton Area Free-Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Miramichi City Community Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Sackville Community Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Nova Scotia

Cape Breton Community Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Chebucto Free Net (Halifax). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Operational

Huron Valley Free Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing

Newfoundland

St. John's InfoNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizing