The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries by P. Jaeger, J. Bertot, C. McClure, L. Lanaga

thomasjasengardner
The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries
by P. Jaeger, J. Bertot, C. McClure, L. Lanaga
There are many reasons why libraries lack Internet access. What we have learned is that rural and urban America lack the equipment, software resources, and conduit to fully access the Internet.
Unfortunately, the same government officials who deny avenues of democracy to lower socio-economic classes are also promoting the perpetuation of the information ravine among farmers, field workers, service workers, small towns and urban villages. While visiting a friend in a small town in northern Wisconsin, my friend commented on how it was too expensive to wire the whole town, so only the library has broadband Internet access. Because of the libraries limited hours of operation, I had only a small window of time to visit the libraries reduced weekend hours. Once I had the password and logged on, I thought something was wrong with my laptop because of slow kbps speed. Between the libraries two hours of being open and my slow connection speed, I did not complete my research.
I had forgotten what a drag a slow connection does to personal inspiration and dedication to find online information. This is just one aspect of Jaeger’s article that details how reduced federal, state, and private donations limit Internet access to urban and rural America. Tremendous progress was originally made though federal grants, e-rate discounts and public /private support. But alas, the s-curve of access to television, telephone, and radio does not apply to internet accessibility for rural and urban America.
Four positions of denial are exhibited by these reductions. Federal authorities issued reports that denied that a digital divide existed, accepted the digital divide as typical in a capitalist society, spread the belief that inequalities between Internet users will be corrected by Moore’s law. Conservatives release dogma that believes the differentiation in the digital divide is shrinking because ICT is smaller, cheaper, faster, and better.
This diffusion theory did not work with either telegraph and telephone, or television. Besides, a television is a one-time purchase that will continue to receive the same electronic station signals for the life of the equipment. A computer changes software and hard drives every six months. For instance, access to new multi-media software for educational materials cannot be accomplished on older computers. Thus, poor actors are denied the latest information distributed with upgraded multi-media presentations. Most low-income actors cannot afford to update accessible resources every six months. The study findings readily concluded that libraries provide Internet connectivity for most Americans. Yet, as concluded in the reading, libraries lack the financial resources necessary for full digital access. Progressive educators blame reduced federal and private funding for broadband speed, workstations, and technical equipment for economic, racial, and education stratification.
These public policies increase the digital divide when combined with a lack of individual skills. Instrumental skills, informational skills and strategic skills provided by on site trainers help to encourage user participations for a technology that improves with change every 6 months. While digital inclusion counts everyone on line, it does not recognize the social stratification in technological accessibility. Economic imperialism under lassize faire capitalism traditionally limits information access to the underemployed and underpaid lower classes.
The funnel of causality, between age and gender, income and education, white collar, pink collar, and blue-collar workers are variables that help to deny resources to every American. As a result, American has unintentionally created a permanent underclass. Equal access to quality education, healthcare, and family wage jobs Some of these differences disappear, when a trainer is available for technical advice and informational guidance. Moreover, bandwidth connectivity also helps to define access to information in a democracy. If libraries are limited by geography and connectivity levels; if libraries are limited by the number of access workstations for clients; and if libraries have to police information, then they are not the place of universal access that e-government is trying to create under a Jeffersonian democracy of information access.
Federal and state governments are trying to encourage e-government interaction. But when urban residents have to wait in line and allowed only a few minutes of usage; and when rural residents have antiquated connection speeds and few workstations; all clients, rural and urban, have inadequate access to public information and Internet services. E-Government is expected to use library computers as voting booths. If Federal Elections Commission had regrets from counting Florida’s paper electoral votes, wait until you see the media circus from using computers to record vote.
The U.S. Patriot Act and the Children’s Internet Protection Act is nothing more then a bureaucratic cloak for ‘thought police’. Public library Internet services are restricted by outdated unreliable filters, according to Jaegar etc. These filters deny 26 percent of health related questions because the word ‘breast’ is in the request. How about not being able to access information about Star Trek, because the filter found a reference to Capt. Kirk being sexy looking. Or how about not being able to access Sponge Bob website because the word sponge is related to birth control. I have a list of 50 words that when used in a library computer browser, will deny you access to that site and record your name, date and time of search request. Can you find more?
Libraries are more then a ‘document delivery institution’; but government bureaucracy forces libraries to comply with government restrictions concerning questionable documents. These same restrictions force librarians to act as book police and to send Homeland Security the name and address of questionable patrons. This surveillance will impact the number of library Internet users. Government surveillance of underpaid overworked library patrons should not take place in a democracy. Statistics show upper and middle-income computer users, access the Internet at home and at work without government intervention. Triangulated research methodologies has proven that inequalities between rich and poor will continue to exist when government spends money on monitoring library computers; instead of using reduced public funds to spy on Americans, government should use funds to increase the power of citizens with computer upgrades, technical support, and number of workstations.
Without additional funding, libraries are destined to being excluded from the information revolution. Undereserved populations, who exclusively use this public service, will be critically absent from being part of the information society. Members of urban and rural communities will be unable to access online content, communicate with family and community members, and interact within a wide range of network-based services and government resources.

Other resources:
www.usa.today.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-04-our-view

Suppression of Speech by the U.S. Government
by Lynn Sutton, Ass. Dean, Wayne State University

High court leans toward allowing library Net filtering
by Tony Mauro of First Amendment Center