Lethbridge Community Network: a case study of a sustainable community information infrastructure.

Marinus Swanepoel
University of Lethbridge
marinus.swanepoel@uleth.ca

The purpose of this paper is to report on a) an investigation on sustainability of community information networks and b) to reflect on sustainability issues surrounding a particular community information network: The Lethbridge Community Information Network (LCN).  The literature showed that the sustainability of community information networks are influenced by: a) the physical requirements such as accommodation, electricity and data-communications, b) the location of the nodes of access, c) the availability of technology, d) the reason why it was established, e) a person to champion it, f) community involvement, g) finance and h) a way to ensure ongoing maintenance of equipment.  A study of the LCN showed that strong Government support through the Canadian Community Access Program helped significantly in the establishment of the LCN.  Even though the investigated showed the LCN has not achieved sustainability, it also showed that most of the requirements for a sustainable community network were present, some to a lesser degree than others.  The LCN is aware of the challenge it is facing in this regard and is moving forward on it.

Introduction

It is often said that we are living in an information society.  This is usually said with the implicit understanding that the Internet is the single most important factor contributing to the establishment of this society.  This underlying understanding in the popular use of the term “information society” further presupposes that the establishment of the information society is a fairly recent development.  After all, the Internet only took off in the 1990’s.  Fact is that the Japanese coined the term “information society” already in 1964 and its first recorded use by the American Society for Information Science was in 1970 (Duff 2000).

So even though it cannot be said that the Internet has given rise to the information society, it can certainly be said that it accelerated the process of establishing the information society since its appearance on the world stage.  

In the information society, information is the raw material of the economy.  Such a knowledge-based economy is heavily dependent on information technology and members of the information society need access to the technology to full-fill their roles in this society.  Viewed from this angle, community information networks are a manifestation of this need brought about by the members of the information society who are most in need of this facility: those who are marginalized.  In serving those who cannot afford commercial services of this kind the economic model that will ensure the sustainability of community information networks is an, as yet, unsolved problem.  

However, fact is that the marginalized are also entitled to fulfilling their role in the information society.  What the role of the members of this information society should be is not agreed upon.   Birdsall and Merrilee (2002) have this to say about the responsibility of the members of the information society:

“The information society also requires a new kind of citizen: the citizen as consumer.  The primary responsibility of a good citizen is not to be politically active but to become a good consumer at the information highway mall.”

This view is contrary to the spirit of the declaration accepted at the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society which indicate a “…common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential…” and the “… removing (of) barriers to equitable access to information for economic, social, political, health, cultural, educational, and scientific activities…” (United Nations 2003).  In fact, political scientists such as Harry Boyte and Benjamin Barber argued already in the 1980s the importance of educating citizens for democracy by informing them about issues and providing opportunities to participate (Kranich 2003).  

Reflecting upon the role of information in democracy and in the information society, while taking particular notice of the Declaration of Principles of the World Summit on the Information Society, it is clear that the impact to be derived from information technology is needed at grass roots level.  These views support, or even necessitate, a sustainable tool or mechanism that will ensure equitable access to information and information technology. Access is required by individuals in the information society to satisfy their needs.  The particular needs that are being satisfied could be looked at more closely.  In trying to identify the needs, Maslow’s (1946) hierarchy of needs could be helpful.

The need at grass roots level, of access to information and information technology is the point where the problem of the digital divide is encountered. Even in First World countries such as Canada not all members of society have equal access and their needs vary.  According to Norris and Conceição (2004) less than 9% of the world’s population is currently able to enjoy the benefits of having access to the Internet.  However, in recent years the establishment of community information networks and the formation of community informatics, as an area for scientific investigation, point to the progress being made to address and understand the digital divide (Gurstein 2003). Community information networks can make a significant difference in this regard, especially if they can be sustained. 

While it is recognized that community informatics is a multidisciplinary field encompassing areas such as access facilities, service design, telecentre design, online service delivery, etcetera and that it has application in areas such as online civic participation, community information, telework, community economic development and more (Gurstein, 2003), it is the lack of reliable access to funding sources and the absence of a viable economic model that needs serious attention. In an effort to contribute to the debate on the sustainability of community information networks this paper has two goals.

Goals

The goals of this paper are to:
•	Determine what sustainability for community information networks mean;
•	Investigate sustainability issues surrounding a particular community information network: The Lethbridge Community Network.

The first goal will be achieved by searching the literature for information on sustainability in the context of community information networks, community information services, information kiosks, telecentres, community informatics and community technology.

The second goal will be addressed by studying the Lethbridge Community Network in its context as a community network in a small city in Alberta, Canada.  Lethbridge Community Network (LCN) was chosen as the subject of this case study for two reasons: a) the coordinator/manager of the community network claimed to have progressed on the sustainability problem and b) it is conveniently located to the researcher.  The investigation into LCN was done through visits to some of the sites where the LCN has nodes of access and discussions with the Lethbridge Community Network coordinator, Jim Campbell and three of the board members of LCN: Kathy Lea, Rhys Stevens and George Hall.  Kathy Lea was targeted because she recently finished her term as president of the board, Rhys Stevens because he is a relative new board member and George Hall because he could be called the father of LCN.  He initiated the very first meeting of interested parties and played a leading role in preparing the proposal for the Community Access Program.

Sustainability

Sustainability of community information networks has a number of aspects to it.  While some are more philosophical in nature others are focussing on the basics.

Physical sustainability requirements

The more obvious physical or infrastructure requirements of a community information network are: dependable access to telecommunications, electricity and a safe dry environment that will protect electronic equipment (Jensen 2004).  These requirements would be easier to satisfy in a First World country (such as Canada) but are non-the-less essential.  When sites are selected for the placement of nodes of access, such as information kiosks, these requirements should be on the top of the list.

Sustainable community information networks need a proper location

More needs to be said about the location.  Not only must the accommodation be safe and dry and be able to provide the necessary services, it also needs to be accessible to the public at large.  Locations such as libraries, schools, video shops, cafes, council buildings and youth centres are often utilized.  Physical accessibility to such facilities is usually good and often makes provision for access for the disabled.  

Social and/or cultural barriers could be problematic and should be looked at closely.  It has been found that some centres are monopolized by a certain cultural or social group to the exclusion of other groups (Simpson, Daws and Pini 2003).  Such a situation would be detrimental to the functioning of the centre. 

Sustainable community information networks need technology 

It is obvious that community information networks need technology.  They need computers, printers, network equipment and all kinds of office equipment.  That is why the digital divide is also called the technology divide.  It is interesting to note that the Bush Administration consider the divide closed in the USA (Bertot 2003).  This point of view in not generally subscribed to (Ronan 2001).

Sustainability and the goal of the community information network

It seems that the reason why community information networks are established vary from place to place.  In all, three reasons or goals can be identified (Simpson, Daws and Pini 2003).
•	To raise awareness of the technology and to provide members of the community with facilities to satisfy their particular telecommunication needs.  Also to provide a place where digital literacy training can take place.   This includes a confidence building aspect, to help members achieve greater levels of comfort in using information technology.
•	To support tourism by making public access to the Internet available to tourists.  This view requires an investment in establishing the infrastructure with an expectation of a specific economic return. This economic benefit could be from an increase in tourism spending, or from sustaining the existing tourism industry.
•	To provide equitable access to a range of information and services from government.  This is particularly aimed at the members of the public without (adequate) private access to the Internet.

Sustainable community information networks need a champion 

The presence of a local enthusiastic person to champion the network is not only essential for the initiation of such a community information network but also for its sustainability (Simpson, Daws and Pini 2003).  Such a person needs to be a skilled manager and be able to communicate his vision and enthusiasm to the community.

Sustainable community information networks need community involvement 

Widespread community support is of the essence (Ronan 2001) (Simpson, Daws and Pini 2003).  This is particularly relevant if the community information network is a distributed one.  In very small towns the network may have a single location.  It may be true of a larger town as well, but should the community be involved to such a degree that more organisations or businesses participate in hosting nodes of access, the odds are much better that the network will be sustained in the long run.

Sustainable community information networks need ongoing maintenance

Another factor of sustainability in community information networks is being able to ensure continuing maintenance of equipment and occasional upgrading to reflect developments in the technology (Simpson, Daws and Pini 2003). This requires the availability of both suitably qualified staff and continuing funding. Community information networks need to generate sufficient finances to cover these costs to operate as self-sufficient projects.  In small rural communities this is not feasible.  The prospect is also not realistic if a major goal of the service is to provide Internet access to community members who themselves lack the financial resources to secure alternative access.  Availability of properly qualified staff, paid workers or volunteers, is especially problematic in small rural and remote towns.
 
Money is needed for sustainable community information networks
 
A simplistic view of the sustainability issues surrounding community information networks would be that it just needs money, that community information networks need to generate revenue in order to survive.  If it is looked at from the vantage point of the traditional capitalist business model: supply and demand – the community information network is supplying a demand for its services for which it should be compensated but those making use of it are unable to pay for these services – it is clear that huge questions should be asked about sustainability.

The commercial model to ensure sustainable Internet access to the public is well suited to and is used by Internet Cafes.  However, in the case of community information networks where addressing the digital divide is of particular importance and the persons it is aimed at are usually at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, the suitability of the commercial model could be questioned.  

However, James (2003) is of the opinion that the commercial model could present possibilities in rural India:

“The problem, however, is that if these small-scale, demonstration projects are to be replicated on a much larger scale and hence make more than just a minor contribution to overcoming the digital divide between rich and poor countries, they will need ultimately (if not immediately) to be able to survive on a commercial basis.”

In 1992 the Australian Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy sponsored a program to support the establishment of what was called telecentres (Simpson, Daws and Pini 2003).  Grants that were made available under this program were limited to two years with the expressed expectation that the forty-three telecentres established under the program would become self sufficient in their financial needs.  In 1996 it was reported that forty-one of the telecentres were still in operation but that only one succeeded in becoming economically viable.  The others managed to find other forms of federal, state and local government assistance.  The one exception that achieved financial independence did so by training members of the community.  With the help of these skilled members the telecentre was able to tender successfully for commercial data entry jobs. 

Sustainable community information networks must provide in the needs of the members of the community. 

Clement and Shade (2000) suggest that there are three questions to be answered when access is discussed: 1) Access for what purposes?  2) Access for whom?  3) Access to what?  These authors also suggest that the purposes of access can never be fully defined.  The members of the community who make use of community information networks do so in order to satisfy specific needs.  It is argued that the purpose for accessing information and communication infrastructure is driven by specific needs. What these needs are is an area still to be explored in a scientific manner.  

However, already there are indications as to what the needs are.  These indications are obtained through taking notice of expressed needs and by observing the behaviour of those making use of the access provided.

In order to identify the needs it is suggested that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs be used.  Maslow (1987) identified the following needs:
* Physiological needs – Food, water, oxygen, and etcetera. Anything the physical organism needs to survive, the fundamental life or death needs.  If these needs are unsatisfied the organism is dominated by it and all other needs may become simply nonexistent or be pushed into the background.
*  “If the physiological needs are relatively well gratified, there then emerges a new set of needs, which we may categorize roughly as the safety needs, (security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom form fear, anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law and limits; strength in the protector; and so on.” (Maslow 1978).
* Belongingness and love needs – Upon gratification of the above two mentioned needs, there will emerge the love and affection and belongingness needs.  These needs involve giving and receiving affection.  Where these needs are unsatisfied the person will feel keenly the absence of friends and family and will strive with great intensity to satisfy this need.
* Esteem needs – In general people have a need for a stable and usually high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect or self-esteem and for the esteem of others.  These needs can be divided into two parts: a) the desire for achievement, mastery and competence, self-confidence and independence; b) the desire for reputation, status, recognition, importance and appreciation.
* Self-actualization need – If all of the needs already mentioned are satisfied in an individual a new dissatisfaction soon makes its appearance unless the individual is doing what s/he is best equipped for.  Musicians must play music and authors must write to experience fulfilment. “What humans can be, they must be.  They must be true to their own nature.  This need is what we may call self-actualization.” (Maslow 1987).   

P= Physiological needs
S= Safety needs
L= Belongingness and love needs
E= Esteem needs
SA= Self-actualization need

Figure1. (Maslow’s Holistic Dynamic Needs Hierarchy  200?)

The white line in Figure 1 illustrates that the needs are not satisfied one by one, but that in order to experience a higher order need the needs of the lower order must be satisfied.  Should they not be satisfied, the higher order needs will be functionally absent.

Lethbridge Community Network

Lethbridge, a city of 75 000 people in southern Alberta Canada, has shown an overwhelming interest in the establishment of a community network.  It could be argued that establishing a community information network was easier for the citizens of Lethbridge because of its location. It is situated in Canada and the Canadian government has been, and still is, providing significant help in the establishment of community networks. 
Canadian government support

Many of the requirements discussed in the section on sustainability are to a great extend influenced, even determined, by national policies.  Canadians are in the fortunate position that the Canadian Government has a strategy to make Canada the most connected country in the world.  This initiative is called “Connecting Canadians” and is the umbrella for the Community Access Program (Canadian Government 2001). 

Established in 1995, Industry Canada's Community Access Program (CAP) is a key part of the federal government's Connecting Canadians initiative.  CAP provides support to the residents of rural, remote, and urban communities across Canada to establish a means of affordable access to the Internet. Through this program, according to Canadian Research Alliance for Community Networking, several hundred million dollars have been invested in funding thousands of non-profit and community based organizations, such as LCN (Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking 2004). 

The Lethbridge Community Network has applied for and received funding under the Community Access Program. On April 19, 2002 the launch of a network of 31 public Internet access nodes in Lethbridge, coordinated by the Lethbridge Community Network, was announced. Industry Canada's Community Access Program has contributed $306,000 towards 30 of these centres (Canadian Government 2003).
Alberta government support

In Alberta the provincial government initiated an infrastructure project (called SuperNet) designed to provide high-speed, broadband access to public facilities (and through service providers, to businesses and residences) in Alberta communities. Alberta SuperNet is a partnership involving the government and private enterprise and is a high-speed, high-capacity broadband network linking government offices, schools, health-care facilities and libraries.  This will add up to 4,700 connections in 422 communities (Alberta Government 2002).

The SuperNet has not reached the Lethbridge Community Network or its partners yet, but if the rollout proceeds according to schedule it will happen still in 2004.  This will significantly benefit the LCN because many of its nodes are situated on the premises of partners that will receive SuperNet connections. 

Development and status of LCN

LCN incorporated in 2001 to secure its legal status (Campbell 2004).  This provided a legal framework for the organisation and served as an indication to potential partners that it will be managed appropriately.  The person who championed the establishment of LCN was Jim Campbell and he is still the driving force.  The number of established sites increased to 38 in 2004 and is comprised of representatives from non-profit organizations, agencies, and the business sector.  The various partners form a network that is coordinated and supported by LCN as a not-for-profit organization. A list of the partners is attached as Appendix A.  
 
The partners of LCN are dedicated to delivering affordable, flexible, and barrier free Internet access to the local community. Many sites in Lethbridge are normally open from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm seven days a week, but some sites are restricted because of the hours of operation kept by the partner.  Accessibility of sites to people with disabilities is always considered. The large number (for a city the size of Lethbridge) of partners ensures that an access node to the LCN in conveniently located for most citizens of Lethbridge.

The goal of LCN is to satisfy a demonstrated need for public access to information technology and the Internet in Lethbridge. It has been observed that information on (low cost) housing, government services, health, education and employment are some of the more common needs.  These needs are reflected by prominent links to such resources on the LCN homepage as is the need for information technology (IT) training (Lethbridge Community Network. 200?).  Training is offered to the citizens of Lethbridge through a combined partnership between the LCN, its volunteers and the Lethbridge Public Library. Together they have created an Information Literacy Centre, situated within the Library that provides training to individuals wishing to develop their skills.  Training programs are run on a cost recovery basis.
 
The pooling of the resources of the 38 partners has created a distributed network of access nodes which now serves over 700 individuals a day. The population making use of the LCN facilities includes a wide range of citizens, both in terms of age and socio-economic status. 
 
The LCN is governed by a Board of Directors which determines policy. A central administration, under the guidance of Jim Campbell, provides each partner organization with the tools and technical support necessary to ensure the success of each site.  Maintenance of equipment is dealt with through a partnership with the Lethbridge Community College (LCC).  The agreement is that LCN will employ students studying for their IT technician diploma to fulfill the practical requirement of their course at a preset rate of pay.  This agreement provides LCN with affordable expertise and the students with experience and some financial reward.
  
In summary a profile of LCN is provided, making use of the template designed by the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (200?).   

Profile summary of LCN
Site name: Lethbridge Community Network (LCN)
Timeline overview:
February 4, 2000.  George Hall arranges a meeting of interested persons from the community to discuss the CAP program and the possible establishment of what was called the Lethbridge Neighbourhood Network (Hall 2004)
March 13, 2000.  Keith Grosse, a representative from CAP, holds a workshop at the Lethbridge Public Library (Devitt 2000).
May 2, 2000.  A public meeting of interested parties from the community is held at the Lethbridge Public Library.  George Hall was the contact given in the announcement published in The Lethbridge Herald of May 1, 2000 (What’s Up? The South’s Top Activities Today and Tomorrow 2000).
October 23, 2000.  The final proposal to Industry Canada was submitted.
June 2001.  The first CAP funding was received.
October 2001.  Lethbridge Community Network was incorporated and Jim Campbell appointed as coordinator
Stakeholders:
Main actors:
LCN Coordinator
Board members
Industry Canada (CAP)

Staff
Jim Campbell
Part time bookkeeper/accountant
Part time technicians (Students from Lethbridge Community College: 12 – 18 students working to fulfil the practical component of their program, 200 hours)

Client groups
Primary: The various partner organizations.
Secondary: The clients of the partner organization.

Volunteers
Apart from the board members, who all serve on the board as volunteers, LCN has on average 10 – 15 volunteers to help with a variety of administrative, training and technical tasks.

Funders
•	The Canadian government provided funds through their Community Access Program.
•	Lethbridge Centre Mall can be viewed as a funder because it is providing accommodation for the LCN office at no charge.
•	Shaw can be viewed as a funder because it is providing internet access through their cable infrastructure at special rates.
•	Various partners by providing space to accommodate the kiosks and in some cases the furniture to accommodate desk top computers as well as maintaining it.

Partner organizations/individuals
See Appendix A for the list of partners where access nodes were established.

LCN also has the following formal partnerships: Social Housing in Action (LCN provides a link on the home page to this low cost housing project), the Lethbridge Public Library (the Information Literacy Centre), Community LINKS project (LCN provides technical and equipment support), the Alberta Community Network Association (an advocacy group for CAP sites in Alberta), also the National CAP Association (advocating for all CAP projects across Canada).

Organizational form
LCN is an incorporated not-for-profit organization.  The coordinator is the only permanent employee.  It also makes use of services of a part time bookkeeper/accountant and student employment on a casual basis. 
Principal organizational goals/mission, especially as relevant to ICT enabled services
The mission of the LCN is to deliver affordable, flexible, and barrier free Internet access to the local community. The vision statement: Public access for everyone everywhere in the community.

Access provision:
These elements are part of a seven-layer conceptual model of access to information and communication infrastructure called the Access Rainbow (Clement and Shade, 2000):
1.	Carriage
60% of partner sites provide their own access to the Internet, mostly broadband.  It is a mix of commercial level DSL, fibre based connectivity and high speed cable access. 50% would be DSL or cable, the other 50% blends DSL and fibre based service. For the remaining 40% LCN provides access through cable transmission.

2.	Hardware devices
61 computer workstations and 10 kiosks are distributed between the various sites.
25% of sites have wireless capability.  Some of the sites are equipped with printer, scanner and even a webcam, as is the case with the public library.

3.	Software tools
Windows with Internet Explorer and the Microsoft Office Suite is the standard with scanning software added as needed. For protection and safeguarding the workstations against technical inept users 1st Security Agent is used.  Filtergate is used as a filter to block pornography.

4.	Content/services
The types of content providers that the LCN homepage link to are: job banks, government information sites, low-cost housing, community information (calendar of events) and training opportunities.

5.	Access provision 
All of the partners as listed in Appendix A serve as points of access.

6.	Training/social facilitation
Computer literacy support is offered on a casual basis by all of the partners except those that have an unsupervised kiosk.  Formal training is offered at the Information Literacy Centre in the public library.

7.	Governance
LCN in governed by a board of 13 members.  Board members must be representatives from a partner organization. The board determines policy to be executed by the coordinator.  The board meetings are open to the public.
Locations/premises
The principal LCN location is in downtown Lethbridge in the Lethbridge Centre Mall.  This also serves as the office of the coordinator.  The other nodes of access are quite evenly distributed around the city.  It is a mix of educational centres (University of Lethbridge and Lethbridge Community College), tourist attractions (Helen Schuler Coulee Nature Centre and Nikka Yuko Japanese Garden), sport facilities (Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre and Lethbridge Soccer Centre) and service organizations (Boys and Girls Club and the Family Centre).
Funding, and other resources
The seed money for starting the LCN was provided through the CAP program.  In all the LCN received $400 000 from Industry Canada.  The goodwill from the community towards LCN is illustrated by the estimated $1.5 Million received in kind. 
Community context
The CAP program started in 1995 with a program for rural and remote communities (Pietrykowski 2004).  News of this program became well known in the community and created an expectation that it could be expanded.  When it was announced that communities in excess of 50 000 will have access to the program (popularly called Urban CAP at the time) the Lethbridge community was ready to participate. At the time the public library was the only organization that offered (limited) public access to the Internet.
Significant achievements (and disappointments)
The ability of LCN to solicit the many donations in kind it received from the community is viewed as an achievement.  The board members are also particularly proud of the status of LCN among its peers: it is viewed as being among the top 10 community networks in Canada.  
Organizational records/archives/publications
There is no official archive of records, but minutes of board meetings are available to the public.  However the website is the primary communication tool.

LCN and sustainability

The aim of the LCN Board is to establish the LCN as a self-sustained organization at the end of the government support period in 2005.  During the last 2.5 years LCN received more than $400 000 in support from the Community Access Program.  Ongoing fund-raising activities and the solicitation of additional partners are critical to sustain the network.  Campbell is of the opinion that by minimizing the operating cost through increased support (in kind) by the partners, it will be easier to reach financial sustainability.  Already the cost of operating the LCN is greatly reduced because many partners, employing IT support staff for their own needs, have agreed to maintain the LCN equipment on their premises on an ongoing basis.  Even so, some cash would be needed and the intention is to secure that through exploiting other funding opportunities offered by federal and provincial government and philanthropic foundations.  Some revenue is generated by using the Lethbridge Community College students to provide IT support to other not for profit organizations at a competitive rate.

Other ideas to achieve the goal of self sustainability that the Board will discuss in the near future are (Lea 2004):
•	Convincing more partners to maintain (and even upgrade) LCN equipment at their own cost.
•	To cultivate foundations with a technology focus, such as the Muttart Foundation. (http://muttart.org/technology2.htm)
•	To tap into agencies that fund youth programs.
•	To change the status of LCN to that of a charitable organization in order to secure the financial benefits attached to this status.
•	Hosting, at a fee, Government/Community programs that need the equipment.
•	Acting as remote on-site locations for examinations and training for colleges and universities using distance education programs.
•	Participating in affiliate or performance programs for local, national or international companies by becoming a marketing tool for them and earning a commission on sales generated from LCN sites.

When the LCN is measured against the requirements of a sustainable community information network it can be concluded that:
a) Physical requirements such as accommodation, electricity and data-communications are provided for, mostly by the partners of LCN.
b) The location of the nodes of access are distributed geographically and also in a social and cultural sense because of the wide range of the partners. 
c) The availability of technology is an unresolved issue even though the partners have been helpful in providing technology at no cost to LCN; this is somewhat worrying in terms of its sustainability. 
d) The LCN is delivering to the citizens of Lethbridge what it promised: access to technology, the Internet and training. It is achieving its goal. 
e) Jim Campbell is an exceptional champion for LCN. The board members ascribed his success to a number of characteristics and talents:
•	his ability to cultivate a relationship with government officials
•	his excellent communication and networking skills
•	his open and non-threatening way of doing business
•	he is a community minded person
•	he has skills and expertise in the IT environment
•	he is a results orientated person
•	he is good at involving politicians in LCN events
•	he dislikes red tape
•	he believes in the role of community information networks 
•	he is enthusiastic and dedicated
•	he has a background in non-profit organizations.
f) Community involvement and support is a fundamental aspect of the success of the LCN. 
g) Even though the finances of LCN seem to be in good shape currently, it is mostly because of CAP funding.  Long-term reliance on government support and philanthropic funding is not the ideal situation. 
h) Ongoing maintenance of equipment is not a problem because of the excellent support provided by the partners.
i) It is clear that LCN provides more in the lower order needs on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as reflected by links to housing and job banks on its home page.  Board members showed interested in the idea of further research into this aspect, possibly by analysing the temporary internet files on the computers at the nodes of access.

Conclusions

The success of LCN can be primarily ascribed to the enthusiasm, energy and commitment of Jim Campbell as the champion of this venture and the involvement and support of the community of Lethbridge.  The question is if it will be enough to overcome the obstacles of access to technology and financial resources to ensure its long-term sustainability.  The LCN coordinator and board members are acutely aware of the sustainability issue.

Stepping back from LCN as such and trying to look at the bigger picture of community information networks, it seems that three different scenarios could emerge:

1.	Use the commercial model and charge the users of the community networks to pay for services they receive.  This seems not to be very appropriate as the community networks were established to help overcome the digital divide, to provide access to the marginalized members of the information society.
2.	Create a cash cow that will provide sufficient revenue for the community network to make it sustainable.  The problem with this model is that if a sideline business is grown to a considerable size it will probably become the main focus the organization.  The organization will no longer focus on the community network aspect there-of.  If this scenario is made relevant to the LCN, one could envisage expanding the workforce of student technicians and selling their services commercially to anybody who needs it.  Such a commercial leg to the organization will change the character and culture of LCN.
3.	Convince government (federal, provincial and local) that community information networks are deserving of tax dollars and that it should be sustained through government money.  Should an analysis of the human needs being satisfied through the use of community networks prove that it is the lower order needs (physiological and safety needs) being addressed, the case could be put forward very convincingly to provide the much needed funding..

References

Bertot, J. C. (2003).  “The Multi Dimensions of the Digital Divide: More than the Technology ‘Haves’ and ‘Have Nots’.”  Government Information Quarterly 20: 185 – 191.

Campbell, Jim. (2004). Personal communication. June 22 2004.

Canadian Government. (2001). “Connecting Canadians.” (Accessed: July 29 2004: www.connect.gc.ca/en/100-e.asp)

Canadian Government. (2003). “Lethbridge Gets 31 New Public Internet Access Centres.” (Accessed: July 29 2004: cap.ic.gc.ca/english/4000newabLethbridge31.asp)

Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. (2001). “Case History Template.”  (Accessed: July 29 2004: www.fis.utoronto.ca/pub/bscw.cgi/d605265/Case%20history%20template)

Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. (2004).  “About the Alliance.”(Accessed: July 29 2004: www.fis.utoronto.ca/research /iprp/ cracin/)

Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. (200?).   Template for CRACIN case site ICT capacity development history.(Accessed: August 30 2004: www.fis.utoronto.ca/pub/bscw.cgi/d605265/Case%20history%20template)

Duff, A. S. (2000).  Information Society Studies. Routledge, New York.

Birdsall, W. F. and M. Rusmussen. (2002).  “The Citizen’s Right to Communicate.” In Manjunath Pendakur and Roma Harris (Eds.), Citizenship and Participation in the Information Age.  Garamond, Aurora, Ont.: 337 – 346. 

Clement, Andrew and Shade, Leslie Regan. (2000). “The Access Rainbow: Conceptualizing Universal Access to the Information/Communications Infrastructure.” In Gurstein, M. (Eds.), Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Information and Communication Technologies. Idea Publishing, Hershey PA.

Devitt, R. (2003). “Initiative provides affordable ‘Net access” In: Lethbridge Herald. March 14 2004. p. A3

Gurstein, Michael. (2003). “Community Informatics.” (Accessed: July 29 2004: www.communities.org.ru/ci-text/papers.html)

Hall, George. (2004). Personal communication.  September 01 2004

James, J. (2003).  “Suitable Internet access for rural poor?  Elements of an emerging Indian model.” Futures 35: 461 – 472.

Jensen, Mike. (2004). “Information Kiosks and Sustainability: Key Components for Success.” In A. Badshah, S. Kahn and M. Garrido (Eds.), Connected for Development: Information Kiosks and Sustainability.  United Nations.  (Accessed: July 30 2004: www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?id=1361)

Kranich, N. (2003). “Staking a Claim in the Information Commons.” Knowledge Quest 31 (4): 22 – 25.

Lea, Kathy. (2004). Personal communication.  August 30 2004.

Lethbridge Community Network. (200?).  (Accessed: July 30 2004: 209.115.241.19/lcn/)

Maslow, Abraham. (1987).  Motivation and Personality.  3 ed. Harper & Row, New York.

Maslow’s Holistic Dynamic Needs Hierarchy. ( 200?). (Accessed: August 30 2004 www.wynja.com/personality/needs.html)

Norris, D. T. and S. Conceição. (2004).  “Narrowing the Digital Divide in Low-Income, Urban Communities.”  New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 101: 69 – 81.

Pietrykowski, Winnie. (2004). “CRACIN Montreal May 13 – 16, 2004. Workshop Summary Report – Second Public Version.” (Accessed: July 27 2004: www.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/cracin/workshop%202004%20minutes.htm)

Ronan, C. (2001).  “Libraries and Community Technology.”  Public Libraries 40 (6): 327 – 329.

Simpson, L. Daws, L. and Pini, B. (2004).  “Public internet access revisited.” Telecommunications Policy 28: 323 – 337

Stevens, Rhys. (2004). Personal communication. August 30 2004.

United Nations. (2003). “World Summit on the Information Society Declaration of Principles.” (Accessed: July 29 2004: www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi-en-1161|1160.asp) 

What’s Up? The South’s Top Activities Today and Tomorrow. (2000). In: Lethbridge Herald, May 01 2000. p.A2.

Appendix A:  The LCN Partners

5th on 5th Youth Services 	
Adams Book Corner-Old Man River Writers Guild 	
Allied Arts Council Bowman Arts centre 	
Assoc. Canadienne Francaise de Lethbridge 	
Boys and Girls Club 	
Canadian Mental Health Association 	
Chinook Country Tourist Association 	
City of Lethbridge 	
Community LINKS of Southern Alberta 	
Family Centre 	
Helen Schuler Coulee Centre Nature Centre 	
Lethbridge Centre Mall 	
Lethbridge Community College 	
Lethbridge Community Network 	
Lethbridge Employment Training - Second Edition Books 	
Lethbridge Family Services - Immigrant Services Office 	
Lethbridge Family Services - Main Office 	
Lethbridge Housing Authority 	
Lethbridge Public Library 	
Lethbridge Senior Citizens Organization 	
Lethbridge Soccer Centre 	
Lethbridge YMCA 	
Managers of Volunteer Resources 	
Native Women's Transition Housing Society 	
Nicholas Sheran Leisure Centre 	
Nikka Yuko Japanese Garden 	
Opokaa'Sin Early Intervention Society 	
Schizophrenia Society 	
Sik-Ooh-Kotoki Friendship Center 	
Sir Alexander Galt Museum 	
Southern Alberta Art Gallery 	
Streets Alive 	
Treaty 7 Housing 	
University of Lethbridge Library 	
Volunteer Lethbridge 	
YWCA 	
YYcommunity