The OS becomes irrelevent for web-based computing. Microsoft's .net is a web-based OS, providing an array of portals, each offering tailored content and applications to a unique audience. I have referenced in my book descriptions of some of the various webs that will reside on the Internet, with their differences due either to technical design (different designs maximize use of different applications) or the unique form of marketplace (supplier and/or consumer) being served.
One size doesn't, as yet, fit all. It never will. In all probability, monolithic sole-provider networks instituted at government fiat, a disruptive and unhealthy gothic reversion to discredited monopolistic communications policy, are sustainable in only a handful of countries. In fact, due the unique technical requirements inherent to different ICT deployments and use (differing applications or user groups), there's no discernible reason for limiting the number of networks. Why carry low-cost basic applications on technical infrastructures more complicated and having a higher underlying cost? Technology has achieved inter-operability, with costs falling rapidly. Government is participating with a small handful of incumbents to (1) restrict the introduction of latest technology by independent ICT's, (2) minimize and limit the number of telecoms, (3) restrict use of VoIP and web computing applications, (4) limit the provisioning of spectrum, (5) deny market entry by imposing fantastic licensing fees and regulation, (6) reconstitute an oligopoly under powerful incumbent providers of extant (legacy) technologies, and (7) impose hidden control over communications through hierarchic deployment (ie. sophisticated, futuristic, commercial applications receive priority). Technology isn't failing us. We are failing to use ICT to its fullest extent. Government, under the corrupting and irrealizable promises of incumbents, chooses to follow its proven methods for building beneficial industries, but has failed to recognize that communications, unrestrained by technical (or physical, ie. customs tolls) difficulty, is no longer an industry. Communications evolves to omnipresence, and in molding to our needs, as opposed to the reverse, becomes a utility to all endeavor. Society is responsible for determining which basic IP applications must be made universal (ie. low-cost). It is this decision, and these basic applications, that decide the minimum degree of enfranchisement in competitive modernity. It is not a decision based on limited technology, or on technology at all. I have more than once rightfully accused civil society of failing to protect our interests. Our digital divide organizations continue to belabor positions better relevent to advanced penetration. Funding is determined by government and the independent agencies beholden to its patronage, in cooperation with ICT incumbents who constrain its use to neglible result, to retard and delay low-cost competition from unrestrained ICT deployment... an increasingly tenuous probability though strictly enforced through an illogical regulation that defies both technology and the operation of free markets. The software, computer and telecom incumbents didn't invent our new IP technologies... they are restricting the deployment of these for commercial benefit. And, they are protected by government and the civil societal organizations they influence (ie. fund). The question of "what" constitutes the digital divide may be better expressed as "who" constitutes the digital divide. This is a stark realization of which to avoid admission, in similarity with the failure to decide necessary IP applications, many of my colleagues undertake fantastic machinations and incredulous arguments. For which social purpose do our enlightened so often attach confusing definitions and misleading goals, and bombastic rhetoric, to the digital divide? Who benefits? Certain basic IP communications applications must be made universally accessible. Spectrum must be reserved by government for non-profit organizations. The most basic level of communications must not be under the control, or even influence, of government or their agents, neither entities public nor private. Physical presence must be eliminated as a requisite for "basic" communications. Alan Levy Mexico, D.F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
