REPORT ON THE IN THE W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION’S MID SOUTH DELTA INITIATIVE COUNTIES

By Stanford P. Gwin, Senior Associate Stephen P. Gwin, Associate Consultants in Communication

For some time in America, understanding that the divide between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, rural and urban, the “haves” and the “have nots,” was rapidly widening as computers and the become ever more important to knowledge and information that promotes success, has concerned political and civic leaders. The now twice updated U.S. government analysis, Falling Through the Net: A Survey of “Have Nots” in Rural and Urban America and other studies (see reading list), has clearly demonstrated that the nation’s most vulnerable populations are less able than others to access the good life as the information age progresses. Projections that by 2010 two-thirds of employed persons will have jobs that did not even exist in 1995 reinforce the assumption of the U.S. Secretary of Labor. That is, instead of retraining several times before retirement, the typical American worker will be involved in continuous learning and training to keep up in the information and service-centered workplace. The need for digital competencies and Internet access is even more crucial for vulnerable populations.

Although in-depth, on-the-ground studies of Internet usage of vulnerable populations have been done in some other parts of the country (Brent D. Hales, “ for Rural Economic Development”), none have been discovered for these populations in the South. This report relies on existing sources of information about Internet usage and accessibility in the 55 Mid South Delta Initiative (MSDI) counties, presents a specific investigation of Internet usage and accessibility in these counties, and finally, makes specific suggestions for addressing the infrastructure of the Delta counties that appeared in the research.

Methodology One informal assessment (Stan Fulcher, Louisiana Department of Economic Development, Office of Policy and Research) contacted sheriffs, morticians, and “other business leaders who would not be politically biased” in 11 Delta counties in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas (very similar to the sample examined here) and estimated that “95-97 percent of homes in these rural areas do not have Internet.” The percentages that Fulcher discovered were higher than national surveys indicate. Fulcher chose to study Internet use indirectly through community leaders because of his concern about the reliability of telephone surveys. Although small in scope and informal in structure, Fulcher’s study makes apparent that the conditions causing some Americans to be victims of the digital divide are more prevalent and more efficacious in the MSDI counties than in other parts of the country. Formal studies examining that assertion were not found in the course of this project.

The search for available sources, the extrapolations of data from one intent to another, and the sampling and phoning were limited by time. Consistency of the conclusions from sample surveys uses the reliability of local librarians as a source of community information. Conclusions that are verifiable about schools and public offices, and comparisons of existing data, should suffice in this preliminary research effort, as far as they are able to go.

The questions to which answers were sought were:

1. What capacities do telephone, cable, and other provider companies have to give digital access to agencies, businesses, or residents of the MSDI counties?

2. What capabilities exist in local and county governments for Internet or network input and/or access in the MSDI counties?

3. What private capacities, expertise, and/or equipment to input or access information on the Internet exist in the MSDI counties?

a. In private businesses? b. In private homes?

4. What public capabilities exist to input or access information on the Internet in the MSDI counties? What plans are there for future capabilities?

a. In public libraries? b. In public schools?

5. How much expertise and/or training capacity exists for Internet input or access in the MSDI counties?

6. What further work needs to be done to have definitive answers to these questions beyond those produced here?

The answers to the questions given have resulted from phone calls and Internet searches, and from systematically surveying a group of public librarians about library, school, and community Internet usage and accessibility. The questions were addressed by calling and/or accessing state officials (governors’ offices, state economic development offices, state information services, departments of education, divisions of educational technology, and secretaries of state), congressional offices for the region, research and development organizations (Foundation for the Mid- South, Southern Development Board, Empowerment Zones, etc.), libraries and state library commissioners’ offices, telephone companies, Internet sources, commercial providers, professors conducting studies of one kind or another in or related to the area, and other available sources that were discovered through those contacts to try to measure the depth of the “digital divide” in the 55 MSDI counties.

The size, scope, and funding for this preliminary report was not sufficient for questioning households to directly determine usage. Contact of public officials and librarians was conducted through a random sample of 15 counties and parishes chosen by applying a table of random numbers to the MSDI county list. Counties chosen in Arkansas were Ashley, Chicot, Craighead, Desha, Independence, Lawrence, and St. Francis; in Mississippi, Humphries, Issaquena, LeFlore, Sunflower, Sharkey, and Yazoo counties were selected; and in Louisiana, Catahoula, Tensas, and West Carroll parishes were chosen. Even though the sample is a very large percentage of the parent population for survey purposes, it is a small number and some adjustments had to be made. For example, in Louisiana, because the proportional selecting is based on the number of parishes in the MSDI list and allows only three selections, Ouachita Parish becomes a bad choice because the city of Monroe is within its boundaries. The number of library locations, computers, and the amount of usage in this one parish would so skew the results that Tensas Parish was then substituted for Ouachita by the random selection method. Likewise in Arkansas and Mississippi, when the counties that contained Arkansas State University and Delta State University came up in the sample, additional locations were added and contacted to make certain that trends were not too deeply skewed by atypical locations.

1. What capacities do telephone companies have to give Internet access to agencies, businesses, or residents of the MSDI counties?

BellSouth in Mississippi has received federal funding to offset the cost of providing universal service to rural areas in Mississippi and Louisiana (BellSouth does not have offices in Arkansas). In the next three to four years they plan to have every residence within 12,000 feet of a “central office” connected, eliminating any loss of Internet dial-up access speed due to distance. Louisiana has not received federal funding and reported that some of the “switching offices” did not have the hardware necessary for local dial-up access. However, all BellSouth switching offices in Louisiana (about 230) are connected by fiber optics; and BellSouth is currently capable of offering Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) line access over the entire state.

Sometimes the access for private citizens is not easy, technologically efficient, or cost free, but everybody in the region who wants Internet access and can afford it is able to have it. State systems exist in all three states for access from libraries, schools, and public offices; but in Louisiana, these agencies have to pay for an area dialing plan or pay toll charges for long distance. Private citizens in rural areas are often subject to long-distance toll charges, wide area calling plan charges, and slower access speeds on dial-up connections proportionate to their distance from the phone company switch office. The librarians who live in cities of 7,000-10,000 or more (40 percent) reported that they had local Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with local dial-up access. Those residing in small towns and rural areas (60 percent) universally had to pay for area calling or long distance charges to access the Internet.

BellSouth asserted that they could meet any rural demand necessitating an infrastructure upgrade without additional cost to the consumer (except in some unique cases). However, Dr. Sharon Stover of the University of Texas at Austin, in a study called “Rural Internet Connectivity” (www.utexas.edu/research/tipi), interviewed ISPs in selected rural areas including three counties in Louisiana. Dr. Stover reported significant complaints from the ISPs about BellSouth’s charges, service, and switch quality.

In spite of these very real problems with ISPs noted by Dr. Stover, the phone companies’ assertion that they can provide higher capabilities upon request has some merit. Seventy-two percent of the libraries reported they have ISDN lines to connect them to the state system. Schools apparently have them as well. ISDN and T1 lines are expensive. Librarians in Mississippi reported paying $175 per month for ISDN service and the only library with a T1 line pays $475 per month. Stover reported one ISP in Louisiana paid $1,410 per month for an ISDN line. E-rate funds that pay 80 percent or more of such connection charges for libraries and schools make them affordable for those institutions but not for most individuals, especially those who are economically disadvantaged or small, local ISP operations. The current state of the infrastructure is unclear from present information and needs further study before specific conclusions can be drawn about the entire MSDI area. 2. What capabilities exist in local and county governments for Internet or network input and/or access in the MSDI counties?

All local government offices in the MSDI counties have Internet access (Foundation for the Mid-South). In Louisiana, apparently local offices have to pay for an area calling plan to cover the long distance telephone costs to reach the state system (Jane Netterville, economic development officer, Tensas Parish, Louisiana), but all appear to have it. In Mississippi and Arkansas, all local governments are connected to the state network.

3. What private capacities, expertise, and/or equipment to input or access information on the Internet exist in the MSDI counties?

a. In private businesses?

Although the capability for businesses to access the Internet certainly exists and a few business and/or Internet marketing operations exist in the Delta, most businesses do not see the need for Internet activity or intend to invest in it anytime soon. Librarians in the survey reported no evident business activity on the Internet with one exception, and that constituted only two instances in a city of 21,000 people. Two reported studies of business interest in using the Internet in one town in Mississippi and one in Arkansas indicated “no interest” and “none anticipated in the near future” in those business areas.

b. In private homes?

As reported in question one above, private homes can access the Internet in the MSDI counties if they choose to do so and can afford it. About half will pay more for long distance service of one kind or another, but if they want it and can afford to pay for it, they can have it. MSDI counties are included in the region with the highest poverty levels in the country. Five MSDI counties appeared on the list of the top 25 counties in the country with the highest percentage of families below the poverty level. Ten of them made the same list for individuals in poverty. Eleven MSDI counties appear on the list of children below poverty levels. Ten made the list of counties with the most people over age 65 below poverty. They were not always the same counties, since a total of 18 made at least one of these lists. Affordability of computers is the issue for low-income residents of such counties.

In the report “Falling Through the Net,” households with Internet access were reported by income.

Chart I-21: Percent of U.S. Households Using the Internet By Income By U.S., Rural, Urban, and Central City Areas 1998

U.S. Rural Urban Central City

Under $5,000 8.1 4.3 9.1 9.5

5,000-9,999 6.1 2.9 7.2 6.8

10,000-14,999 7.4 6.0 7.9 8.1 15,000-19,999 9.8 8.4 10.3 11.0

20,000-24,999 12.1 10.0 12.9 14.4

25,000-34,999 19.1 15.4 20.4 22.5

35,000-49,999 29.5 26.4 30.6 31.8

50,000-74,999 43.9 38.7 45.7 44.0

75,000+ 60.3 53.7 62.0 59.7

NTIA (National and Information Administration) (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99

The smallest numbers are clearly in the rural categories. In some MSDI counties, more than half of the populations fall below the poverty line. Sixty percent of the librarians reported that in their counties some sort of long distance had to be used to access the Internet (47 percent area calling plans, 13 percent per-minute long distance), making it even more expensive than in other areas of the country.

Confirming these conclusions, James Bohland of Virginia Tech University who is conducting a study of Internet use in rural America reported the percentage of Internet connections in non-metropolitan households by race.

Non-metropolitan Counties Black

Arkansas 9.4 % 5.9 %

Louisiana 15.1 % 4.3 %

Mississippi 11.8 % 3.5 %

Consistent with these figures, Fulcher, and others who have made efforts to examine Internet use in rural poor households place the percentages below 5 percent. Because so many conditions that cause populations to “fall through the net” (poverty, illiteracy, age, geography) are present in MSDI counties in larger percentages, the digital divide is likely to be greater in this area than elsewhere. One Louisiana parish development officer said, “If there were any good studies of rural Internet use to be found, I would know about them and they are not there.”

4. Internet in the MSDI counties? What plans are there for future capabilities?

a. In public libraries?

Since the Gates Foundation has established a grants program that makes computers available to all public libraries, and since the tax imposed on everyone’s phone bill makes “Universal Service” of the Internet available for schools and libraries, libraries were surveyed to determine computer and Internet use. In addition to information about availability of Internet in the libraries and usage by patrons, the librarians were a source of additional information about Internet access among their friends and in their communities. Librarians who served in libraries with rural branches offered opinions about who had computers at home in their communities and who used them in the library. The questionnaire (appendix B) was designed and tested in earlier interviews not in the sample, and its immediate reliability allowed all completed surveys to be used for this report.

In all, 18 libraries were called in 15 counties. Thirty percent of the libraries were in cities with a population of 3,000 or more, 55 percent were in small towns, and 15 percent were in rural areas. The results of the survey are reported in raw numbers and percentages.

All of the libraries contacted have computers (all but one have computers from the Gates Foundation) and all of them have Internet access (10 of 15 partly funded by e- rate funds [universal access tax on phone bills]).

All of the computers in the libraries are used by patrons for Internet access, some more than others, but all on a regular basis. In the cities, librarians have waiting lists, time limits, and forbid e-mail and chat room use. In rural areas, computers are used daily but are not crowded, and patrons rarely have to wait. Librarians generally allow whatever Internet activity users want, with the one exception being the universal effort to prevent public computers from accessing offensive material. Sixty percent of the libraries reported “constant” usage of Internet computers and waiting lists. Eleven percent said that the computers were in use 80 percent of the time, with another 11 percent being used 50 percent of the time. Seventeen percent were in use 25 percent of the time.

Eighty-three percent of the libraries reported that the computers were used by “low income” people, 100 percent had teen patrons, and 61 percent found younger children using the Internet. The librarians reported that most of the teens and younger children were “low income students who had learned to use the Internet at school.” Only three libraries found any use by elderly persons, that was infrequent, and only two said that they had “rural” patrons. Individual librarians reported that three-fourths of adults using computers were on welfare (five libraries) and that the children using the computers were mostly African American (nine libraries). Adults used the computers mostly for consumer and genealogical research and job hunting. Children and some young adults used the computers most frequently for recreation, particularly chat rooms and game playing. All of the libraries had policies forbidding access to offensive materials and all stationed the computers in full view of a library staff member at work.

Sixty percent (nine) of the counties’ libraries accessed the Internet through a state system, 13 percent through a dial-up system of some kind, and 27 percent through a local commercial provider. Seventy-two percent had ISDN lines and 16 percent had T1 lines provided by the phone company for connecting, while 5 percent connected through a local cable company. Since only five of the libraries were on dial-up systems and expected to be on ISDN lines before the end of the year, dial-up systems were omitted.

Only 11 percent of the libraries surveyed had special staff dedicated to helping patrons with the Internet, but all of them had regular staff who had Internet experience and were ready to assist patrons in learning access. Only three libraries held classes in Internet use in the library for patrons and only one of those did it regularly. However, all but 17 percent reported classes for computer use and Internet access open to the public elsewhere in their communities. Forty-four percent of the classes were in local public schools, 17 percent in adult learning centers, 17 percent at nearby community colleges, and 6 percent at local senior centers.

Librarians also were asked about personal and community use of the Internet. Fifty- three percent reported that they had the Internet at home, while 47 percent did not. Those who did not have it said that long distance calling plans were required for access so they preferred to use the Internet at work. Ninety-three percent of the home access was by dial-up systems and 7 percent by cable connection. Forty percent of the communities accessed the Internet with seven digit local numbers, 47 percent connected through area dialing plans that cost $30 per month or more, and 13 percent paid for per minute long distance service to access the Internet.

When asked how many people they thought used the Internet in their communities, librarians divided into thirds. One-third said “very few,” one-third said “some,” and one-third said “many.” No one selected the “most” option for this question.

The librarians indicated that all of the schools in their communities had computers, access to the Internet, and taught classes in it. While that is not universally true, some schools in every county had Internet instruction, so some students who learned at school would be coming to the library to use the Internet.

The Humphreys County, Mississippi, librarian found herself helping a man in his eighties who was trying to find something about his ancestors. She took him to the computer to show him what to do. He demurred, saying “I might break it,” and “I can’t read all those words anyway.” She persisted, staying with him quite a while and showing him how to respond to pictures with point and click and how to block and print passages he could not read to take home. The next day he was back with his 75-year-old brother who also could not read. As they worked, they began to pick up on words they recognized from seeing them over and over. Later, they brought other friends and now a circle of five or six elderly people come into the library every day to use the Internet. Another librarian has formed a retired persons Internet and e-mail club to get older people into the Internet.

The only real danger to the burgeoning library system of Internet accessibility is the question of how it will be maintained. All but one have computers bought by the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation provides grants for technology, training and Internet access. Librarians receive intensive training and have access to a help desk and upgrades for two to three years. Libraries applying for and accepting Gates Foundation grants make a commitment to build into their budget provisions for maintaining and upgrading the technology once the foundation’s support runs out. The libraries have at least two years to plan for this. Unfortunately, only one of the 18 libraries surveyed in the Delta had any regular budget funds for computers, and that was for office computers.

b. In public schools?

All three states in the MSDI program provided recent data describing Internet access in the public schools. That data has been analyzed for the 15 counties in the random sample. Louisiana parishes (http://www.lcet.doe.state.la.us/submissions) demonstrated the most effective Internet capability. Every school (22 total) reports high numbers of computers with Internet access in instructional classrooms, computer laboratories, and library/media centers. Sample counties in Arkansas reported every school wired for the Internet and only one school that didn’t have computers. Unfortunately, the Arkansas data does not address whether existing computers are Internet capable or if they are located in “wired” classrooms. Some concern exists over whether the computers are in the classrooms where “wiring” allows students or people from the community to access the Internet. Seven of the schools from the sample counties have five or fewer computers and some of them were not located in “wired” buildings.

Of the three states, Mississippi seems to be the farthest behind (though better data from Arkansas might change its position). Of 42 schools in six counties in Mississippi (Issaquena and Sharkey counties are in one school district), 10 schools had no Internet access in their classrooms. Sunflower County may be atypical with six of seven schools devoid of classroom Internet access, but if Sunflower is removed from the sample, the remaining counties still show eleven percent of the schools without any classroom Internet access.

6. How much expertise and/or training capacity exists for Internet input or access in the MSDI counties?

Some expertise and training capacity appears to be in place in the MSDI counties. Dr. Bohland’s research showed that some community technology centers existed in each of the states but none in or close to the Delta. The best data that exists on expertise and training capacities appears in the examination of schools and libraries above. Librarians reported school, adult learning center, community college, and senior center training activities in computer and Internet use were open to the public and free. Only three of 15 counties reported that no training activity was available to the public.

7. What further work needs to be done to have definitive answers to these questions beyond those produced here?

To discover the extent of Internet usage in disadvantaged households, capacity for its use in individuals who live there, including everyone from school children to the elderly, and to learn how to motivate residents who fit the category of rural poor to start using the Internet, surveys of a representative sample of households in MSDI counties should be conducted. Apparently, the technology exists to keep former President Clinton’s promise to get every American “connected.” There also appears to be some rather powerful indications that access to the Internet and use of it changes people’s lives by improving literacy skills, knowledge, and personal esteem. The United States Internet Council says that the necessary connectivity is already there, but even they admit that the exceptions to their statement probably exist in “rural counties of the . . . South.” Telephone companies say they will respond to demand as it comes for connectivity, but ISP owners disagree, contending that current demand is unmet and often requires unreasonable prices.

Conclusion While we do not seem to definitively know if the state of the digital divide is in the MSDI counties, early indications seem to show that it is deeper there than in other places in the United States. If we seek to communicate or motivate through the Internet, our messages are likely not to be received in the Delta unless accompanied by powerful messages through other media. People must become aware that information that might benefit them in some way is available on the Internet if they go and get it. Public officials, teachers or librarians, and individuals who may need to know about programs all are unlikely to be searching the passive Internet unless instructed and motivated to do so. We can probably safely make the following three assertions from the study reported above: 1. A larger percentage of MSDI populations fall through the net than any other part of the country. · In many areas, more than half of all households are below the poverty line. · Minorities are the largest segment of the population. · Rates of illiteracy are the highest in the country. · Educational levels are the lowest in the country.

2. MSDI counties do not have the same connectivity to the Internet as other parts of the country. · Not enough telephone trunk lines in some areas. · No local dial-up access in some towns. · ISPs are not available in some rural areas. · Bandwidth beyond normal phone lines is prohibitively expensive.

3. Persons who use the Internet in MSDI counties have not yet discovered how to make it change their lives. · Businesses are not yet using it to any significant extent. · Most of the observed use is recreational and by children. · Research uses of the Internet appear to be all genealogy and consumer functions with some interest in job seeking.

Finally, the simple observation, not yet refuted by any studies or reports, that less than 5 percent and perhaps less than 1 percent of the households in rural southern counties have any access to the Internet at all, is telling. The digital divide is alive and well in the mid-Mississippi delta.

Selected Readings (most from Lenz, Becky; Straubhauer, Joseph; LaPastina, Antonio; Main, Stan; and Taylor, Julie. “Structuring Access: the Role of Public Access Centers in the ‘Digital Divide.’” Unpublished but online. University of Texas [2000].)

Benton Foundation (July 1999). The Digital Divide. The Digital Beat, Vol. 1, No. 8. [Online]. Available: http://www.benton.org/DigitalBeat/db070899.html

Bertot, J.C. and C.R. McClure (1998). The 1998 National Survey of U.S. Public Library Outlet Internet Connectivity: Final Report. American Library Association Revised February 1999.

Clinton, William J. (1997). “Remarks by the President at Education Announcement/Roundtable,” The East Room, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, April 2.

The Emerging Digital Economy report (April 1998). U.S. Department of Commerce. [Online]. Available: http://www.ecommerce.gov/viewhtml.htm

Brent D. Hales, “Telecommunication for Rural Economic Development.” In Making All the Right Connections: Telecommunications and Rural Viability. Peter F. Korsching, Patricia Hipple, and Eric Abbott, Eds. Praeger, In press.

Henderson, C.C. & King, F.D. (1995). The Role of Public Libraries in Providing Public Access to the Internet. In Brian Kahin and James Keller (Eds.), Public Access to the Internet. (pp. 154-171). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Hoffman and Novak (February 2, 1998). Bridging the Digital Divide: the Impact of Race on Computer Access and Internet Use. [Online]. Available: http://ecommerce.vanderbilt.edu/papers/race/science.html

Keller, J. (1995). Public Access Issues: An Introduction. In Brian Kahin and James Keller (Eds.), Public Access to the Internet. (pp. 34-45). Massachusetts: MIT Press.

The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action, U.S. Department of Commerce (no date). [Online]. Available: http://metalab.unc.edu/nii/toc.html

NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) (July 1995). Falling Through the Net: A Survey of “Have Nots” in Rural and Urban America. U.S. Department of Commerce. [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html

NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) (July 1998). Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide. U.S. Department of Commerce. [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/

NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99

Appendix A People and/or Offices Contacted Arkansas

Director of Telecommunications Research, Sam Loudenslager Office of the Governor’s Chief of Staff Office of Congressman Marion Barry Office of Congressman Jay Dickey Arkansas Information Services Office of Rural Advocacy, Kelly Boyd University of Arkansas, Institute for Economic Advancement, Dr. John Shellnut Director of Arkansas Science and Technology Authority, John Allen Department of Education, Information and Technology, Data Administration Unit, Brenda Caudle Division of Information Systems, Suzanne Bradston Census State Data Center, Sara Breshears Arkansas Department of Revenue, Ed Hicks Arkansas State, Jonesboro, Jerry Smith

Louisiana

Secretary of State’s Office, Avery Sloan Governor’s Office Louisiana Database Commission Office of Congressman John Cooksey, Bob Stewart Tensas Parish Secretary of Treasury Tensas Parish Economic Development Officer, Jane Netterville Education Technology, Rachel Sellers Superintendent of Education Department of Economic Development, Office of Policy and Research, Stan Fulcher Department of Economic Development, Special Projects, Delta Area, Pat Robinson Digital Louisiana.org, Mike Staggs Louisiana Partnership for Technology and Innovation, Ann Guissinger Louisiana Association of Non-Profit Organizations Louisiana Department of Revenue, Rickey Herbert Louisiana Public Service Commission BellSouth in Louisiana, Nixon Adams, corporate office; Cathy Zimmerman, infrastructure

Mississippi

Governor’s Office Information Technology Services Education Technology, Helen Sole Jackson State University Statistics, Alma Blakley University of Mississippi, State Data Center Mississippi Public Service Commission, Telecommunications Division, Randy Teu BellSouth in Mississippi, Dennis Brackin, regional account manager; Larry Greer, corporate office Office of Congressman Bennie Thompson, Lenier Avant (Washington office) Mississippi State Tax Commission, Jan Craig

Other

Southern Growth Policies Board, Scott Duron Dr. Sharon Strover, University of Texas at Austin Dr. Jim Bohland, Virginia Tech University Dr. Wimberly, North Carolina State University

List of Relevant Internet Sites University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Institute for Economic Advancement www.aiea.ualr.edu

Census State Data Center www.aiea.ualr.edu/csdc/default.html

Economic Development Administration, Southwest Region www.edaauro.org

Boardwatch - List of ISPs by state, area code, and town www.boardwatch.com

The List - similar to Boardwatch www.thelist.com

Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations www.lano.org

United States Internet Council www.usic.org

United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide” www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html

NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) digitaldivide.gov

The Council of Chief State School Officers, Links to State Education Agencies www.ccsso.org/seamenu.html

MISNET Topology Map - shows how Mississippi universities are connected to the Internet www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/misnettop.html

Development Information Network of Arkansas www.dina.org

Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute www.utexas.edu/research/tipi

Louisiana Department of Education - data concerning the connectivity of schools www.lcet.doe.state.la.us/submissions

Appendix B

Kellogg Research/Libraries

State______County______Library______Person______Phone______

Is your location city _____, suburb _____, rural ______

1. Do you have computers that the public can use? Yes______No______Expect to soon______

2. Do they have Internet access? Yes______No______Expect to soon______World Wide Web or just e-mail? ______

3. How much are they used? # per week ______

4. Can patrons establish personal e-mail accounts? Yes_____ No______How many accounts are there? ______

5. Who uses the computers for Internet? low income ______elderly ______rural ______farmers ______city people ______illiterate ______teens ______younger ______

6. What kind of Internet access do you have? State system ______dial up ______private ______Other (cable, T1 connection) ______

7. If a dial-up connection, is the access; seven digit local number ______number in a calling plan ______per minute long distance call ______No dial up ______

8. Does the library have staff and/or programs to teach people how to use the Internet? Is staff solely designated for that purpose?

9. Are you aware of any other programs or facilities in the county or nearby (if another county specify) to teach people about the Internet?

Now I want to ask you about your personal experience and observation about Internet use in your community.

10. Do you personally have Internet access at home? Yes _____ No ______No answer ______

11. How do you access? Dial-up _____ Cable _____ Phone Co. ______

If a dial-up connection, is the access: seven digit local number _____ number in a calling plan _____ per minute long distance call _____

12. How many people engage in Internet activity in your community? Very few _____ Some _____ Many _____ Most _____

13. Do the schools in your community have access to the Internet?

Businesses?