I'm glad Stephen jumped in with the full text of Michael Powell's remarks, because having heard him speak on other occasions I had strongly suspected that digital divide remark was taken at least somewhat out of context.
I am certain that Powell is not only aware of but actively interested in solving issues around disparities of access. And I feel this way because I know that he proactively contacted my old organization, One Economy, about supporting it's "Bring IT Home" initiative (to provide broadband access to residents of low-income housing) after reading about their work in the Washington Post. http://www.one-economy.org/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50706-2004Aug8.html And while I don't know enough about the issues to really analyze the CNET editorial describing him as the internet's biggest foe, I suspect there is a great deal of hyperbole there. Having heard Powell speak on a couple of occassions and read remarks of his online, he has usually made a great deal of sense to me. And while I don't that I (and certainly others on this list) would disagree with him about some things, he is certainly someone who should not be demonized. - Gordon Strause --- Stephen Ronan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
