“The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries”

Jaeger, Paul T., John Carlo Bertot, Charles R. McClure, and Lesley A. Langa. “The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries.” Government Information Quarterly 23, (2006): 123-141.

In this article, the authors draw on data gathered in the Public Libraries and the Internet 2004 study and use that data as part of their analysis of government policies that affect Internet connectivity in public libraries.

The identify six key policy issues: (1) the nature of sufficient bandwidth, (2) the perpetuation of the digital divide regarding Internet access in libraries, (3) the role of public libraries as access points for e-government services, (4) funding of Internet access, (5) the impact of filtering, and (6) the effect of homeland security legislation.

What they found in 2004 was that policy issues included, but were not limited to “sufficiency of connectivity, levels of public access, the need for training, continuing gaps in access, sources of funding for technology, and questions of public policy” (124).

The authors examine changes from earlier studies in the series and discussed those changes in terms of policies that helped facilitate increase access to digital technology, particularly the Internet.

They go on to explore how policies are changing and discuss the impact of some of those changes. For example, they note that, “in recent years, government attention has shifted from the digital divide to a focus on ‘digital inclusion.’ This new focus on digital inclusion emphasizes how many people are currently online. By making this shift, the policy direction has moved from working to increase Internet usage among entire populations to viewing current levels of access as an accomplishment” (128).

To me, this shift signals a loss of interest in, and commitment to, communication disparities on the part of policy makers. As the authors note, “By adopting a ‘mission accomplished’ perspective, the policy has greatly reduced the urgency given to efforts promoting online participation…accompanied by a reduction in the funds available for many programs related to increasing access to the Internet among the underserved populations” (128).

However, the 2004 study showed that “there is still an identifiable digital divide in the United States” (128). In other words, policy makers have declared success too soon. The authors discuss three types of disparities: rural vs. other libraries in terms of number of access terminals and broadband connectivity, state-to-state disparities in terms of access and bandwidth, and times of day when there are an adequate number of workstations available.

The authors also discuss how the government and the public have come to expect public libraries to be universal access points to the Internet. What this means is that as government information and services have shifted to an online environment, agencies expect the public to be able to access that information and those services through the Internet. They further expect public libraries to provide the needed Internet connection for those who have no other access.

This increase in demand for access is coming at a time when “the level of technology in some libraries may be reaching a plateau” (130).

The next policy area the authors examine is funding and how current policies may not recognize the need for continuing funding for maintenance and upgrade of equipment and software. For example, “one of the main sources of technology funding for pubic libraries, the E-rate program, was actually temporarily suspended for several months in 2004 as a result of management and oversight issues” (132).

The last areas the authors examine are the effects of government legislation requiring filtering of Internet content and the implications of homeland security. Both sets of legislation create problems for libraries in terms of access to information and patron privacy.

Filtering is easier said than done, and existing filters tend to block large amounts of health information. In addition, complying with the law is costly and complex and some libraries are opting to forgo the funding attached to compliance for those reasons.

Homeland security, particularly The Patriot Act, presents the threat of invasion of privacy and affects the kinds of records that libraries keep. The Patriot Act increases the circumstances and the scope of surveillance and investigations in libraries, expands definitions of records that can be searched, allows for tracing and searching electronic communications, and places a gag order on investigations (125).

Concern for patron privacy has led many libraries to cease keeping many types of usage records, records that “have an number os extremely important uses in libraries, from collection development to justification of funding” (135).

Even though this article goes way beyond the scope my project, it includes a wealth of material related to the whole topic of public libraries and Internet access, all of which affects my perception of my topic and its importance.