Is Access a Positive Freedom?

In the United States, we take pride in the idea of a nation founded on the principles of equality of opportunity. U.S. social policy endeavors to distribute resources so as to equalize the opportunities people have to make their lives successful, on their own accounts of success. According to this philosophy, society must provide a "level playing field," and individuals should face the consequences of their own choices—those who do are entitled to the fruits of their success, and those who fare poorly cannot ask for rectification.

Increasingly, access to the Internet is a necessary resource for equality of opportunity in the Information Age. The Internet is changing the ways people work, learn, communicate, and create their home lives. In the past, the barrier that separated the upper classes from the under classes was literacy, defined as the ability to read, to write, and to do simple arithmetic. In the 21 ^st century, however, information literacy is the new requirement for a citizen of the world to be considered educated. But for a person to achieve information literacy, he must have access to the tools, i.e. the Internet and related technologies, to become comfortable with interpreting the vast amounts of information available.

Yet not all Americans have the knowledge or resources to effectively use the Internet. Public programs are beginning to address the need for access by citizens in all demographic groups. However these programs (such as access in libraries and community centers) do not provide citizens with instant passage to the resources available on the Internet. They may be inconveniently located or in such high demand that each person's time spent online is restricted.

Similarly, access to telephone service became a necessary resource in the earlier part of this century and the government addressed this need for disadvantaged citizens in several ways through a concept known as universal service . Historically, universal service has meant "plain old telephone service" but today voice services are rapidly converging with video and data technologies where access to these technologies is critical for equal opportunity to economic success. As a result, the U.S. again faces the challenge of providing all Americans access to basic communication services.

Neither access to information networks nor "free TV" are rights inscribed in the Constitution. However, the founding fathers understood the importance of communications and information for commerce and community building among the scattered settlements of the original colonies and addressed this in several ways. For example, Benjamin Franklin proposed and the Constitution gave Congress the power "to establish Post Offices and Post Roads." In 1820, the Post Office was promoted out of the Treasury Department to a government department with the aim of reaching all parts of the nation as a common carrier. It was understood that a social goal of the postal service was the diffusion of knowledge—newspapers, books, and magazines were given large subsidies in mail rates. The First Amendment made it clear that speech was to be unregulated by the federal government, and the Fourteenth Amendment extended the concept to the states. Citizens were to be unrestricted in their communications. This established a fundamental belief in the importance of communications and of access to information for all citizens (McKnight, 1995).

In the Communications Act of 1934, Congress established a national policy of universal service that extended beyond merely laying the wires and infrastructure to connect all citizens. It included a commitment to making service economically accessible to all Americans. Public policy declared that pricing be such that all Americans could avail themselves of telephone service. The "last mile" costs of laying the physical infrastructure necessary to provide telephone service to rural areas is subsidized by the lowered costs of providing telephone service to dense urban areas. The Federal Communications Commission was created as a result,

For the six decades between the passage of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, universal service was implemented by setting rates for basic service and applying principles of cost allocation and cost recovery to keep the cost of basic service low and affordable.

Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 not only reaffirms the central importance of universal service in telecommunications, but it has vastly expanded the concept. Although access to the network for high-cost areas and low-income consumers has been supported for years, the 1996 Act explicitly requires this policy and requires that it be implemented with specific and predictable mechanisms, in the form of contributions from all providers of telecommunications services to support universal service. A whole new range of institutions has been identified as having a role in universal service policy.

The mandated revision must expand both the base of companies that will contribute to offset telecommunications service rates and the category of customers who will benefit from discounts. Schools, libraries, and health care providers as well as residential and rural customers are the primary universal service beneficiaries. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the states base the revision of the universal service system on seven basic principles:

Chairman Hundt noted that the information sector of the economy now makes up 1/6th of our entire economy, and job growth in that area is 2/3 greater than in any other part of economy. By adopting these rules to ensure affordable access for households in all geographic areas, all income levels, for schools and libraries, and nonprofit, rural health care providers, government is taking necessary steps to guarantee that all citizens have a chance to share in the promise of the Information Age.

Access to computers and computer networks is not evenly distributed throughout the U.S. population. Specifically, computer access and use are positively correlated to higher levels of education and income and gaps in access are widening over time. The digital divide of Internet access has effects that go to the heart of issues concerning economic participation and equity. For example, help wanted offerings are increasingly being carried on the Internet, sometimes on an exclusive basis. If any demographic group becomes excluded from using the Internet, it will also be excluded from the economic benefits provided by participation.

The gap in computer ownership between the upper and the lower classes has widened since the mid-1980s, so that now higher proportions of the wealthier segments of the population have computers relative to the poorer segments. An information elite exists, made up of those with access to computers and the Internet. As the Internet becomes more pervasive and more commercial and government transactions in the United States take place on-line, the information "haves" may leave the "have-nots" further behind.

Data from the October 1989 and October 1993 U.S. Government Census Reports shows that there are large differences in both household computer access and use of network services across income categories. These differences are due partly to other socioeconomic characteristics, but they remain highly significant even after controlling for those other characteristics. The gap between high-income and low-income individuals is not only large, it also widened between 1989 and 1993; higher-income individuals are adopting the new technologies at a faster pace (Anderson, 1995).

Figure 1 presents the percentage of individuals who report that they have a computer in their household and that they have access to network services such as an Internet Service Provider (ISP), as a function of household income category. Four quartiles of income distribution are examined. In 1993, the quartile cutoff income levels were $15,000, $30,000, and $50,000 per year. Clearly large differences in household computer access across income categories exist. In 1989, only 6 percent of the lowest income households had computers, whereas 35 percent of the highest-earning quartile had computers at home. Four years later, the respective figures were nearly 7 percent and 55 percent. These data reflect significant differences in household computer access based on income.

Further, the income-based gap in household computer access became even wider by 1993. In 1989, individuals in the top income quartile were six times more likely to have access to a computer in the household than individuals in the bottom quartile. By 1993, this gap had widened to well over seven times more likely. Although use of network services is far less than use of household computers, similar patterns exist for network use in relation to income. Large differences between quartiles are becoming even larger over time. In 1989, 2 percent of the lowest income quartile used network services, whereas over 11 percent of the highest income individuals used them. By 1993, these percentages had increased to nearly 3 percent and 23 percent, respectively. The net gaps have widened significantly between 1989 and 1993 (Anderson, 1995).

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) contracted with the U.S. Census Bureau in 1994 to add questions on PC and modem ownership and usage to its "Current Population Survey." The NTIA issued a popular report in 1995 called Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the 'Have Nots' in Rural and Urban America . Using 1997 Census Bureau data, the NTIA updated the status of the digital divide and issued a subsequent report, Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide , in 1998. The following figures are excerpted from this report.

The 1997 data demonstrate that, as a nation, Americans have increasingly embraced the Information Age through electronic access in their homes (see Figure 2). PC ownership has increased 51.9%, modem ownership has grown 139.1%, and email access has expanded by 397.1%. Despite these significant growth areas, the digital divide between certain groups of Americans has increased between 1994 and 1997 such that there is now an ever-greater disparity in computer penetration levels among some groups. There is a widening gap, for example, between those at upper and lower income levels.

After accounting for income, Figure 3 shows that there is not a significant difference between rural, urban, and central city areas for computer penetration, although rural areas still have a significantly lower rate for on-line access. For computers, households below $35,000 in annual income all have PC and on-line access levels below the national average (36.6%, 26.3%). Rural households earning between $5,000 - $10,000 account for the lowest penetration rates for PCs (7.9%) and online access (2.4%). By contrast, households earning more than $75,000 in urban areas have the highest PC-ownership rates (76%) and on-line access rates (50.3%).

We have transitioned into an economy based on knowledge. Access to relevant information is the key to success and a lack of information compounds traditional poverty. For those with sufficient access to information resources and the knowledge to use them, the benefits are immense. For example, there is accumulating evidence that access to computers and communications technology confers economic benefits. An examination of U.S. Census Report data from 1984 to 1989 shows that workers who use computers on their job earn 10 to 15 percent higher wages than otherwise similar workers who do not use computers (Anderson, 1995). The study corrects for unobserved variables that might be correlated with job-related computer use and earnings (e.g., recreational computer use, prior educational achievement, and economic health of the enterprise). Additionally, a recent study by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), a trade association representing the information technology industry, found that there are over 190,000 unfilled positions for information technology workers (one out of ten jobs in this arena is currently going unfilled). As for the possibility that this is a temporary job shortfall, the U.S. Department of Commerce completed its own study detailed in "America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology Workers," and found that between 1997 and 2005, over one million new jobs will be created in this sector alone.

However, in order to realize the benefits of higher pay for jobs in the information technology sector, workers must first possess the skills needed to compete in this economy. A report in 1991 by the Labor Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) describes the attributes of individuals who are employable in tomorrow's workplace environment:

The SCANS report begins to address what advances in cognitive science are showing us about how humans learn. All people acquire new skills by applying what they already know to new learning environments. Citizens denied access to telecommunications technologies would be at a severe disadvantage as they encounter new situations requiring the use of these technologies to advance in their job or education. For example, consider a factory worker who must learn to use a robotic technology to assemble a product. If that worker had never used a computer before but the robot requires a computer to manipulate its movements, the worker faces a much higher learning curve than a coworker who has used computers before. The fear factor of the new technology may inhibit the worker from advancing in his or her career.

Consider a recent situation in Africa. Following a barrage of complaints, the Educational Testing Service has decided to suspend computer-based testing in at least 20 African countries. The numbers of sub-Saharan African students taking the TOEFL English-language tests had declined by two-thirds following the move last year from paper-and-pencil to computer-only testing. Officials at the U.S. Information Service posts in Africa had reported that many students were unable to travel to the "mobile test centers" where the computerized tests were administered, and many opponents raised concerns about African students' familiarity with computers (T he Chronicle of Higher Education , 1999). A similar situation may take place at academic institutions in the United States. Georgia Tech, a large public university, requires that all students entering the university possess a personal computer. Regardless of the expense involved, those students without the knowledge to use the computer are at a severe academic disadvantage.

The issue of equal access becomes increasingly urgent as more governmental functions become available through the Internet, sometimes on an exclusive basis. Those without Internet access can neither use nor participate in "point-and-click" government. Highlighting this inequity is the fact that the 1996 political conventions of the Republic and Democratic parties were transmitted over the Internet, and included opportunities for interaction and response. The Small Business Administration allows small businesses to register on-line and to obtain information on raising capital, and, since 1993, the Internal Revenue Service has allowed citizens the option of filing tax returns electronically. Both organizations also respond to citizen queries on-line. The Government Printing Office allows citizens to download government publications for free online, but for many of these publications, require a payment for paper copies. Numerous other examples are available—one has only to have Internet access to view government websites to realize the wide number of services available online at no cost!

Beyond the public sector, access to the Internet can benefit consumers in many ways. For those without access, they may pay more for services than consumers with access. Many banks have recently begun charging consumers fees for accessing banking services through a live bank teller. For bank customers with the know-how and access to online services, they can save in bank fees. Wachovia, Inc., a bank in the southeastern United States, recently decided to charge customers $2 to speak with a customer service representative over the telephone for services that can be conducted virtually through Wachovia's automated telephone system or website. While this charge does not affect the many tech-savvy customers who regularly conduct their bank transactions online, those without access are singled out to pay more. Similarly, Congress recently passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which prevents taxes on products purchased via the Internet. Some critics see the problem of equity, that half the U.S. homes with annual incomes over $75,000 have Internet access while fewer than 10 percent of the rural poor use the global computer network. The Internet tax moratorium creates a duty-free zone that is largely inaccessible for the poor.

Economic benefits are an important component of the argument to provide access to the Internet to all citizens, however, there are other factors to consider. The Internet can give citizens more direct access to policy makers and enable socially isolated communities to participate more readily in political debate. As civic and social alliances increasingly rely on computer-based interactions, anything less than universal access poses policy problems, and especially if access is unfairly distributed over socioeconomic groups. For instance, several studies have shown that individuals who use computer-based communications have more accurate information about political, professional, and organizational concerns than peers who do not. A nationwide Times Mirror survey of technology in American households (1994) showed that 63 percent of adults who use computers and networks scored high on a current events quiz, compared to 50 percent of demographically equivalent computer users without network access and 28 percent of their counterparts who do not use computers.

Some have said that access to a computer and the Internet has become so fundamental in American society that access should be a right, such as the right to medical care or education. If society has reached a point where established rights such as the right to an education or opportunity for employment are conditional on activities requiring knowledge of telecommunications applications and capabilities, then Internet access may be considered a positive freedom. If however, society has not reached a point where access to the Internet is necessary to find employment or receive an education, then access should not be considered a positivist right. So the question remains, has the United States reached a point where access to the Internet is necessary for education, employment, or similar right?

Equal opportunity in the United States focuses on the capacity an individual has to realize their potential. Through education, acquiring more knowledge gives citizens more freedom to pursue their own definition of success. For example, illiteracy is an unfreedom—not just the lack of freedom to read, but also the curtailment of all other freedoms that are conditional on communication requiring reading and writing. Should limited access to the Internet also be considered an unfreedom? Citizens without access cannot benefit from tax-free purchases, online applications to the Small Business Administration, and direct contact with their congressional representatives. Does this constitute a curtailment of the notion of equal opportunity?

Increasingly it is apparent of the benefits of Internet access. Take for example, the SCANS report, which outlines the skills necessary to be able to work in the Information Age. Each of the skills delineated is based, at least in some part, on knowledge of effective use of the tools of the Information Age. If a student graduates from high school but still does not know how to use the Internet to find an online application for a college scholarship, he or she may lose out on that scholarship opportunity. The Universal Service Fund established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is ensuring that K-12 students have access to Internet resources while in the classroom. But is this enough? Does providing students with Internet access ensure that they have sufficient education in telecommunications use to be able to compete with wealthier students who have access at home? (The Edison Project, the country’s largest private manager of public schools, addresses this problem of inequity by providing computers to all students, regardless of whether they can afford them.) What about older citizens? Should they too be educated on the use of technology?

The question is one of fairness and the role of government in ensuring positive freedom to all of its citizens. Are we at the point where, all citizens considered equal, we would be willing to provide or take away access for all? A school technology coordinator once explained how she had managed to have all of her school system administrators never question technology purchases in a school system with a limited budget. Her simple solution was to purchase a laptop for each of the administrator's use for six months, and then once they had become comfortable with the technology and used it extensively, she took them back. The once resistant administrators had realized how integral access had become to their position, and never again questioned her purchases of technology for the school system students.

One of the biggest policy challenges is achieving consensus on the fundamental values surrounding universal access among the different stakeholders of national and global information infrastructures. Although it is generally agreed that access to networks and services should be equitable, affordable and ubiquitous, it is also recognized that access will depend on many different physical, technical, and economic factors. As well, communities will define access in different ways. For instance schoolchildren will probably not need the same high bandwidth as that required by researchers in medical imaging. The disabled community will need special features to aid in accessing information that the able-bodied community takes for granted. And, different individuals and groups will demand both access to, and creation of, their own information content.

Opponents to providing universal access to the Internet state several reasons, the most notable being the cost of implementation. For example, the Universal Service Fund for schools, libraries and health care providers created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is paid for by charging telephone service subscribers and then subsidizing lower rates for the beneficiaries. These rates vary from discounts of 20 to 90 percent from the market rate, depending on the specific economic situation of that beneficiary. A discount rate of 90 percent is substantial, especially considering that the private sector must pick up the costs through charging its regular-paying customers higher rates for the same service. An editorial in the Washington Post states that residential phone customers will face an increase of four to five percent on their monthly phone bill to pay for the new Universal Service Fund. This amounts to a Fund of $4.9 billion in 1998, or an average of about $50 a year for every U.S. household (Glassman, 1997). If a similar mechanism was established to provide discounted or free Internet access to disadvantaged communities, this would only further increase the cost of telecommunications services to paying citizens. An increase in rates would likely cause fewer people to be able to pay for and use these services, thus creating the exact situation that universal service is set up to resolve. Services would cost more and as a result, fewer people could afford them, resulting not in universal access, but limited access.

At the time of this writing, several bills were circulating the House and Senate that threatened to either eliminate or reduce the amount of federal spending allocated to the Universal Service Funds for schools and libraries. On February 10, 1999, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced H.R. 692 to terminate the fund. According to Trancredo's "Dear Colleague" letter of January 26, the Universal Service Fund should be terminated because "millions of dollars are available to schools through a number of existing federal programs to improve technological capabilities." In fact, however, the e-rate program is the only program that helps defray the ongoing cost of providing telecommunications in libraries as well as schools.

Other congressmen believe the FCC's implementation of the e-rate is unconstitutional because the agency is imposing a "tax" that only Congress has the authority to levy. Thought the e-rate was established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the congressmen believe the FCC has exceeded the vision that Congress had when it passed the legislation. A similar challenge to the e-rate brought by GTE Communications Corporation is currently before the 5 ^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. A ruling is expected in spring of 1999. Two other plaintiffs in the case, BellSouth Corporation and SBC Communications Incorporated, have withdrawn their complaints, believing they can resolve their differences with the FCC out of court ( eSchool News , 1999).

Newt Gingrich briefly proposed providing tax credits for lower-income citizens to encourage their participation on the Internet. An article in The New Yorker said that subsidizing poor Americans’ purchases of $1,000 computers would cost the U.S. Treasury $40 billion. Both the media and politicians jeered at his tax credit, so he quickly abandoned the idea. Providing Internet access to individuals who may find it difficult to have enough to eat, a place to sleep, or shoes on their feet seems to be a scrambling of priorities. However, as one example shows, Internet access may help improve an individual’s ability to find a paying job. A recent case in Austin, Texas where a homeless woman created her own web page by using a free computer network provided her with the necessary links to get a job with Time Warner.

Another difficulty with granting universal access is that the technology required to keep up-to-date with current trends is constantly changing. What is the necessary technology that makes up service that should be provided and when would universal access be fully realized? Today it may be sufficient to provide a 486 computer, training to use it, and a 28,800 BPS modem but the meaning of universal access must be reevaluated every couple of years to keep up with current technology trends.

The Information Age requires greater coordination among scientists, engineers, and policymakers if we are to realize a vision of improving lives, the health and freedom of all peoples. In the 21 ^st century, the need to clearly evaluate the intersection of technology, society, and policies concerning digital communication technologies will be more pronounced as these technologies permeate daily life. According to a survey taken by the Benton Foundation, a strong majority of Americans support government taking an active role in addressing issues of access, knowledge, and cost to make these services universal (The Benton Foundation, 1997). One of the reasons is that the public does not want to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Survey results show that the public believes the government should provide grants to help communities and nonprofit groups make new technologies available in schools, libraries and hospitals (77% support, 18% oppose). In addition, the survey results show that the public believes the government should ensure that a nationwide information system will be accessible to everyone in every part of the country (67% support, 26% oppose).

As the Benton Foundation survey indicates, the United State’s communications infrastructure should reflect the values of democracy. Ultimately, the success of the Internet will be measured by whether it empowers citizens, protects individual rights, and strengthens the democratic process. There is nothing in recent data to suggest that, without policy intervention, gaps between the information haves and have-nots will close. In spite of the growth of electronic communications systems, many U.S. residents probably will continue to lack access to the network well into the next century without societal intervention. Additionally, relatively disenfranchised groups such as the inner-city minorities and rural poor may be the last to be reached by commercial Internet systems that evolve in private markets. Studies have shown that highway development can improve economic development in rural areas (Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering, 1996). The Information Superhighway is no exception.

Finally, while it is true that universal access will have a positive impact on many aspects of our lives, we should never delude ourselves that it will solve the basic issues. The big issues are inequality and the weakening of social bonds. We must find ways to shape our societal environment in ways that reduce these inequities. The benefits of using networks such as the Internet in providing equal access to information, government, and educational resources can help reduce the inequities as time and place become less significant. Whether a user is in a remote Alaskan fishing village or in downtown Manhattan does not matter. What does matter is that both citizens have equal access to the opportunities of the Internet.