On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Phil Shapiro wrote: [...]
you might recall, powell is the senior u.s. government official convinced that there is no digital divide. (see his comment below in 2001.)
------------------------
Asked about the "digital divide," a term used to describe people of color, poor and rural communities' relative lack of technological access, Powell retorted, "You know, I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one; I can't afford one" (Chicago Tribune, 2/7/01).
---------------------
Another perspective on what Powell said was offered by Andy Oram of O'Reilly and CPSR wrote after listening to the videotape of the full press conference. He wrote (http://www.webreview.com/pi/2001/06_08_01.shtml): "After a press conference in February by the new FCC chair Michael Powell, his humorous comments about a 'Mercedes gap' were widely quoted as a disparagement of the goal of universal access to broadband. But in the same speech he announced firmly that 'The E-Rate is a wonderful program' and that the digital divide is 'an important issue.' All in all, he left considerable ambiguity about his views."
Below is what Powell said re: the digital divide in that press conference... (my transcription):
******************************************************************
"You said the most important thing: the "so-called" digital divide, and the reason I emphasize that is not to diminish its importance but to suggest that the digital divide means lots of different things to lots of different people, much of which is not in our purview. Deployment of computers for example in personal homes and whether the computer market is providing at reasonable costs and accessibility those services -- there's almost nothing I have to do with that question.
"We're committed to providing in whatever responsible and reasonable way we can the full deployment of the infrastructure that will make this dream realizable and we do that in the name of all Americans and I think we do that in a way that we think will facilitate or at least eliminate barriers to do it in every segment of the population and its geography.
"But that said, I also think that the term sometimes is dangerous in the sense that if it suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology hits the market there's a divide unless its equitably distributed among every part of the society in every component is just an unrealistic understanding of an American capitalist system. That's not true of any good or service in the economy, and particularly in the early stages of innovation... You want to know what? It is going to be the wealthier people who have more disposable income who buy $4000 digital TVs first. Does that mean there's an HDTV divide on the first day that they're out there? No. You know, I think there's a Mercedes Divide. I'd like to have one, i can't afford one. I'm not meaning to be completely flip about it because I think it's an important social issue, but it shouldn't be used to justify the notion of essentially the socialization of deployment of the infrastructure because what I get afraid of is that there is a real risk consequence to that, because if you force... if the standard is you can't have it, you can't produce it unless you produce it for all, always... I'm very worried it doesn't get produced. There is an alternative that we tend to forget about that producers have which is, don't make it. Don't deploy it. And I assure you that happens. [...]
"If we can do things that help make the cost burdens and the deployment burden less so that they'll also want to sell to people with less income or more in disadvantaged areas, we'll do everyhing we can to do that... but I don't embrace the idea that digital divide is the same thing, as for example, as a universal service concept... because I think this technology is going to be one of the most wondefrul things that this society has produced to help poor and those less advantaged americans because I think it has a built in low-cost structure.
"You know what? Internet service in America right now is averaging $13 a month flat, all you can eat. That's phenomenal. That's half of what the local phone bill is that we subsidize and that's without subsidizing it at all and you know what? In a lot of markets you get free Internet access for tradeoffs. But you know what? These new technologies have new promise for ubiquity for affordability before you build a big subsidy program and you know what? We'd better understand those relationships well before in the name of closing a divide or a gap we inadvertently disincent or disaffect the incentives for the good progress we've seen. If as this matures... we still... what will emerge is that there will be clearer pockets of the problem and when you get those and you have a more focused understanding of what doesn't work there, that's where you can act and act more decisively, but I think we're still in the early innings of that evolution."
******************************************************
Stephen Ronan [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
