Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
I would like to build on what Vickram Crishna has stated: It is a common concern that any such development makes some people 'more equal' than the others. Unfortunately, in many Indian cases, the current village 'head-man' or one from the local all-powerful family was the only one educated and responsible to handle and maintain equipment that was supposed to be community-owned. Sometimes it is the only option to equipment vendors and their commissioning engineers, who would otherwise be marooned at the (very remote area) site for as long as a year, struggling to complete the 'handing over' procedure to avail of full payment. Further, the government itself monopolised access to development-driving utilities like postal services, telecom, petroleum and power distribution, besides aviation, steel, cement and fertilisers, making public representatives, civil servants and those in their proximity 'more equal' through their ability to dispense or broker scarce resources and favours. However planners at all levels have learned from these experiences and are trying to correct this. No one can say that the local private courier, PCO (Public Call Office) and Cybercafe owner is any kind of a power-broker or monopolist now. Low capital cost, limited margins, simple equipment and possibility of competition make it unattractive to the quick buck chaser. Likewise, the Nodal Agencies in quite a few States have undertaken mass-education and user-training initiatives, also motivating local 'owners' of community-owned stoves and renewable energy systems like solar streetlights. Telegraph offices have markedly improved. Cement and steel are no longer restricted supplies just as licenses to manufacture or distribute these are no longer exclusive privileges. Instances of money-order racketeering are less known among populaces with higher levels of literacy. We can learn from all this and apply it here too: In case of the Simputer, its low cost, open-source or public domain software - operating system and applications, hardware specifications, knowledge-sharing groups like the Yahoogroup and Sourceforge communities, and attempts to disseminate this information - even discussions like this, prior to its launch - will definitely help mitigate any 'holy cow' in it. In fact, IT by itself has grown from being a rocket-science for the privileged few to something taught in schools, and the many popular private institutes, with books and CD-ROMs on any topic available all over India and in several regional languages. This is bound to result in better all-round awareness of usage, servicing, applications and peripheral development as well as competition-driven low costs. Branded PC manufacturers need to run hard for their money. It appears that economy - from market-driven regulation more than administered controls, education and communication are about the best anti-monopoly weapons. On my part, I would back all endeavors in preparing all technical support and educational material related to the Simputer. Regards Udit Chaudhuri ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
Dr. Perry Morrison wrote: Another way to put it is that the developed are quite happy to inform the undeveloped on the practical things they need to do to redress their situation. However the developed are not that keen on being told of the political dimensions/causations of underdevelopment and their continuing role in it. Sadly, absolutely right It doesn't matter if the internet megaphone is now a hundred times bigger, the developed world simply puts on a better set of blinkers and earmuffs. Well, if we are, as you are, talking history, it can be argued that competing political political interests are sometimes resolved through conflict but sometimes through accomodation. At times when the latter is attempted, the earmuffs sometimes come off. Once more, the causal roots of many of these problems have nothing to do with megaphones, blinkers or IP technologies. They're about politics. We can solve some of the practical problems with technology. But technology alone won't solve political problems. No matter how much technology you have, you still have to do the politics. And in most cases the lingua franca is what it has always been - power politics such as boycotts, strikes, political and economic unions amongst groups and countries etc. etc. Historically it has been these messages that have been understood more clearly than 10,000 emails from Africa. I agree you have to do the politics but you also need to think about how information exchanges and the technology which supports them are affecting not only how you do those politics but the whole context in which they take place. Firstly, politics are not just about 'petitioning the powerful'. By enhancing the ability of the powerless to communicate and collaborate with each other (something which the poor and isolated have always found more difficult than the rich and connected), the Internet does offer a relative advantage to the powerless. Secondly, although the current world order may appear absolutely entrenched, the times when power relations change most are exactly those when there are fundamental changes in the mode of production - changes which the frequent assertions that the information revolution is as significant as the industrial revolution would appear to anticipate. New modes of production will offer new opportunities for the powerless to organise themselves to promote their interests. These opportunities may be analagous to, albeit almost certainly different in form from, the power of organised labour over the last two centuries. Whether this will offer a relative improvement in power relationships or the reverse is, I would think, too early to say. If anyone is interested in this line of argument, it is sketched out in more detail in a 'debates' contribution to the Review of African Political Economy no 88, 2001 - 'Knowledge, culture and the internet in Africa: a challenge for political economists' All the best Mike Powell ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
The internet can be used to empower those previously by-passed in decision making processes. The poverty mapping of Chicago is an excellent example. Volunteers in disadvantaged communities can map their experience and regularly update and display it and grow conscious of the overall framework which has historically restricted them. The ideas of Paulo Freire gain an extra dimension with the possibilities afforded by the internet. In the UK I am working with by-passed communities in the mapping of their transport circumstances making use of the internet. The visibility of their complaints through the net has created a policy making interest in these communities which was not previously active or present. (go to http://www.goneat.org.uk and http://www.geocities.com/transport_and_society/zurich.html ). The role of the public intellectual will change as communities gain the practice of mapping their own circumstances and comparing it with that they map of others. These techniques used in Chicago and the north east of England can be used more fully within the development context. The openness of those holding the resources for furthering connectivity is critical to the speed of community mapping and monitoring and participation in decision making but not to the eventual outcome. Distributed technology enables mapping to be undertaken by resourced individuals in conjunction with communities and displayed globally no matter what the character of traditional attempts to block flows of information. More open discourse, more community mapping, more participation of the poor in the attack of poverty and a commitment from the President of the World Bank that this is really the direction he wants to go in. At present, the public relations does not look good - programmes on CNN pinnacle which celebrate the cello playing of James Wolfensohn when the leading press is awash with stories of the muzzling of world bank 'experts'. Time to use distributed technology for more pertinent action than the globalisation of preferred self image - what is the knowledge bank doing to ensure that knowledge is the province of the poor. Margaret Grieco Visiting Fellow Lucy Cavendish College Cambridge The potential of this mode of action research has not yet been fully realised ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
On Sunday 13 January 2002 07:42, Dr. Perry Morrison wrote: - - -snip - - - Hi: I was going to snip and comment, but, regardless of which paragraph I landed on, I found myself wanting to add my .02 worth. So, your message in its entirety deserves a singular comment. You, sir, need to read what you write before sending. This is amazing stuff, and so very nonproductive. Communication does NOT flow from developed to undeveloped, from rich to poor, from advantaged to disadvantaged. Ridiculous. A zillion web pages offers communication, especially, if those zillion web pages promote undeveloped countries' thoughts, ideas, news, events, information, and, most importantly, communication. The Small Business Association [SBA] supports those disadvantaged individuals who might wish to participate in commerce and industry in America. Without the communication from disadvantaged individuals flowing to those advantaged individuals, organizations, and agencies, onward to business and commerce in developed countries, the SBA would sit in an empty room, doing nothing. Expand this obvious example to the world community, and, suddenly, you should realize that your mindset is as closed as one person's mindset could possibly be. Around the world, there are enormous opportunities for those who currently reside in undeveloped countries. With continued perpetuation of the Digital Divide as that term is being used, here, those opportunities remain hidden, obscure, undiscovered, unobtainable. Just Do It. Give them the tools, and they'll produce. - - - of course, then, self-justification like yours will be in need of review, eh? Respectfully, Tom Poe Director WORLDCCR.org ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
I feel I must respond to Perry Morrison's Comments. It may be naive to think that ICTs in developing countries will suddenly make it matter when the West has a much greater ability to tune the message out, to corrupt it or just turn up the volume on its own orgy of self interest. Whilst it is clear that Information Handling Technologies can be used by powerful parties to mis- or dis-inform, I think it is important not to view the west as a homogenous lump. Whilst it is true that the emerging picture of the global power structure is being effectively blocked out in the majority of mainstream media outlets, it has to be remembered that awareness of these issues is greater than it ever was. Whilst this does not neccessarily shift the decision makers of today, it may affect the decision makers of the future. Some have said that old ideas tend to die with those that hold them, and certainly change may require a long view. This is especially true when it comes to the material division of the spoils on a global scale. But to forget the impact that information has, is to forget what governments, and for that matter all buerocracies are made up of and how they operate. They are staffed with real human beings and they will have to recruit from an increasingly aware pool of educated young people. The more accurate and relevant information that value driven groups have at their disposal, the more that they will be able to influence important decisions. And for that information to be accurate, and relevant and to carry a certain legitimacy, it needs to be seeded from input at the grass roots. Certainly it is important to focus on practicalities, but it is also important to have the endurance to commit to longer term objectives. And information handling capacity at, or at least nearer to, the grass roots seems integral to this. Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
Tom Poe wrote: Hello: So, you don't have objections to moving computers over to developing countries, setting them on the tables of all the communities, and then discussing politics. Is this a correct perception of your comments? If so, then maybe the time has come to do just that: http://www.worldccr.org/kiosks.htm Not only don't I have objections, I have been doing this in very remote areas of Australia since 1996. I guess all I'm saying is that new communications tools don't necessarily change political/power imbalances. They make organising people and exchanging information a lot easier, but let's face it, the oppressed were storming the palace long before mass literacy was even evident. And when mass literacy helped the struggle, the oppressors used their own and more powerful propaganda and information tools. In general, technologies are congruent with the rest of the world- the powerful have more and better than the powerless. To use a different analogy, having a rifle helps a lot with hunting and feeding your family, but don't think that it will necessarily redress the political underpinnings of your malnutrition. The political basis of your starvation may be the dictator down the road, but your shiny new rifle won't tackle that situation- facing machine guns and maybe the odd bit of napalm. Yes, a gun is a bit better than a sharp stick. But when you had a sharp stick, the dictator only had rifles. And so it goes. I hope this analogy is useful, if a little too violent. In this same vein, the same basic communications tools used by the oppressed to change their circumstances can also be used against them by their oppressors (media disinformation, monitoring, data matching, data mosaics, funds tracking and interruption and simple communications with operatives/agents/sympathisers/employees). Probably the most powerful weapon the West has against the claims of the developing countries is to simply ignore it by basking in an inward looking, media hyped, materialist culture that revels in itself. It's not as if our TV screens have not been saturated with images of starving children and third world turmoil. There is no lack of awareness or even information. What is lacking is the political consensus that it actually MATTERS. It may be naive to think that ICTs in developing countries will suddenly make it matter when the West has a much greater ability to tune the message out, to corrupt it or just turn up the volume on its own orgy of self interest. To put it in a nutshell, some problems faced by the developing world are practical, physical problems that ICTs can address- technology to solve practical problems like getting the best design for a $200 shallow bore pump and advice on how to install and maintain it. Practical problems like market information, weather forecasts etc. However, ICTs won't be a magic bullet against the political processes that have determined your need for a bore pump so that you don't have to keep drinking from puddles. Your drinking from puddles probably has a lot to do with an internal power struggle, international arms deals, a non-level playing field in international trade and finance, international meddling and interference in your domestic arrangements (possibly via aid funds) and a host of other political factors. It would be nice to think that putting an internetted computer in such villages will support a massive international dialogue that will promote mutual understanding and ultimately redress the political processes that underly so many of the problems of the developing world. However, I just watched some TV for the first time in 4 years and I can't see much chance of reasoned dialogue piercing our cocoon of materialistic self interest- despite huge amounts of already available information on the issues of the developing world. Shallow is shallow regardless of the medium. In addition, as mentioned in one of my posts last year, many technologies have been touted as great equalisers of society, including railways, electricity, the telegraph, radio and TV. It's pretty obvious what DIDN'T happen and in restrospect it's obvious why- the problem of equity is a political problem, not a technological one or even a resource issue in many cases. Finally, just to complete my unholy thesis of cynicism- there is at least some possibility that greater communication around the world could actually lead to less healthy relationships. For example, I have been married for 18 years to an Australian Aboriginal woman- with all of the racism and bigotry that is normally associated with that status. It's interesting that indigenous people are usually treated better elsewhere than in than own country. North Americans often idolise Australian Aborigines in the noble savage mould, while Australians are often very attracted to First Americans. In their own countries, both are often stereotyped as drunk, lazy, dirty etc. With better communications, there is the
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
Dr. Morrison concluded with this comment: I'm not sure that they will have much role in changing the network of human power relationships that have determined and tolerated these and similar circumstances for so long. I feel this is where the real power of the Internet lies. Prior to this revolution anyone who wanted to change life for himself or her neighborhood or community was very isolated and had an almost impossible task of recruiting others to share an individual vision. Since most really creative new ideas involve thinking in the wilderness that means that most individuals could not get new ideas to the market. Unless a person were uniquely gifted or independently wealthy his/her idea just remained an undiscovered solution. The Internet changes this, in potential, if not in reality. Anyone who can get on-line has the potential to express an idea and invite others to join in making that idea a reality. Now days it is so simple to build a web site that that idea can be expressed with graphics, photos and text that is there to be discovered by anyone. If the idea is good enough and the person persistent enough, others can be found to help shape the idea and bring it to the world. Just to give an example of how this works, I've been trying to use GIS mapping to show poverty levels in Chicago to an Internet audience. Last spring someone on this list posted a message and I followed that with an introduction. If you go to http://communities.msn.com/TutorMentorConnectionGIS you'll see a web site where this volunteer is now creating maps that draw attention to my cause in ways that I could not do before. Without the Internet I'd still be looking for help to do this. To me this changes the traditional network of power politics in radical and revolutionary ways. The change may not be apparent today, but my guess is that over the next 25 years it will have a dramatic impact on historic power models. Daniel F. Bassill President Cabrini Connections Tutor/Mentor Connection 800 W. Huron Chicago, Il. 60622 www.tutormentorconnection.org ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
I was going through Grand Central station in New York City just before Christmas, and while buying bagels in the new GC market, I struck up a brief post 9/11 commiseration with the person serving me ( a woman). She assured me confidently that 9/11 was a function of the huge global social divide (although she didnt use that word... she phrased it more in terms of communication lack)... and said that all would be solved eventually by the Internet...all the world needed was free, open and equitable access for all to all information and knowledge and problems would be resolved... we didnt get into any snaggy little details like absent electric power or local language issues... (that would have destroyed the moment) but I was genuinely struck by the power of her 'faith' . It is naive however (in my opinion) to believe that universal access to information somehow will resolve the world's philosophical, religious, and ethical divides. Just give the same 'information' to the standard experimental psychology sample of university students (the basis of most of today's western psychological theory) and see the statistical deviance in resulting behavior even around the normspeople read the same tea-leaves differentlyfind the same book/movie variously enjoyable or tedious, and rice pudding hideous or delectable So in this interesting thread I resonate to the idea of direct voicing (the original purpose of the GKD List) and access to services. I also like Alan Levy's admonition to keep social development un-imposed, using various kinds of e-platforms as facilitators. But the reality is that free markets have inevitably favored the well-heeled, and therefore those with substantial assets to begin with. So not surprisingly, this asymmetry is already clearly evident in the spread and utilization of e-technologies. As learning has generally throughout human history been the province of the learned (building exclusion upon exclusion) the real challenge for digital-divide opponents is to welcome diversity (usually at odds with conservatism!), and pay the (high) costs to traditional institutions that will inevitably result. ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
Margaret Grieco, of Napier University (Edinburgh) focuses in on the persistant problem of muzzling expert opinion within the international development community and singles out the World Bank for its internal problems. While the World Bank may be an example of this problem it is probably unfair to single out the World Bank, although it does manage to act as a lightening rod in such issues.The wider problem is a (willful?) failure to learn at a number of levels. One level is the effective muzzling of expert opinion within developing countries themselves. This is achieved in several ways. One is the simple export of intellectual capital because of lack of employment at home and the fact that the industrial nations import that expertize (across a number of fields) as a cheap alternative to investing in their own people. In many cases the annual values of the outflow of intellectual capital (measured at its cost of production) is greater than the inflow of development assistance. Another way in which valuable expertize is muzzled is to marginalize it by not allowing it to participate in those very activities where its mix of expertize and knowledge of context (local conditions) would prevent many of the persistant shortfalls of international assistance. There is a persistant bias toward foreign expertise with numerous well documented shortcomings. As well, this practice drives the export of local intellectual capital, and prevents the building of local capacity. Lastly, when valuable local expertize does achieve employment in its field, that does not mean that the expertize gets utilized. When it is expatraiated, to work with international organizations, it is frequently both alienated from thinking about local context, as well as being muzzled by institutional policies. When it achieves employment within its home country and could contribute from both its expertize and knowledge of local context, it has to deal with the tremendous power imbalance between the external funding sources, and the internal development organizations. Argentina today is a case in point. There are many within Argentina who would have had the country take a different path, especially with regard to dollarization and pegging the peso one-to-one with the U.S. dollar. However, there were strong forces within the IMF and the U.S. Treasury Department who saw this as a great opportunity for an experiment. They - of course - thought it would work, and effectively had the power to force the experiment. However, only Argentina has to pay the price of failure. In the pre-IMF days at least the foreign debt holders were exposed to risk as well. There is an excellent recent book on these issues, published jointly by Kumarian Press and the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and edited by Ian Smillie for the Humanitarianism and War Project. It is titled Patronage or Partnership and while its focus is on local capacity building in humanitarian crises, it is really about the willful failure of international development efforts to learn, both from their mistakes and from their successes. I can think of no other 200 pages I would rather have my development colleagues reading at this time. Sam Lanfranco, Chair School of Analytic Studies and Information Technology York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel 416-816-2852 fax 416-946-1087 ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
This thread is intriguing and appeals to my long term interest in the absolute vs relative gains provided by ICTs. There are really 3 points that I think are important. 1. Absolute gains in living standards. I agree that these technologies can deliver real gains in access to information, potentially better and cheaper forms of (some) service delivery and certainly the communications base to coordinate and self organise commercially and politically. For example, to take an obvious case, getting accurate weather, market and agricultural information is important in an absolute sense in terms of crop production, feeding people and export income. That is, ICTs can facilitate improvements in existing baseline living standards. 2. Despite these potential absolute gains, the relative imbalances in living standards will remain. That is, developing countries will always be a generation or two behind technologically for pretty obvious reasons. This may not be important if the aim is to provide an acceptable absolute living standard regardless of the level in say North America. 3. The global status quo is a relative imbalance of POWER that is simply refelected in (amongst many other things) similar imbalances in ICT capability. Augmenting ICT capability will not shift this relative power imbalance. For example, getting 10,000 African emails to Paris might be an achievement. Getting them read or even noticed might be a miracle. Especially when 100,000 emails come in from the Northern Hemisphere as well as videos, thousands of phone calls etc. In addition, the very tools that open up communications can be used to screen it out and even monitor those people or organisations that are particularly troublesome. J. Edgar Hoover did a pretty good job of monitoring miscreants using typewriter technology. Imagine what's possible today and imagine the media and informational tools now available to protect the interests of the status quo. So, the technologies that allow the oppressed to organise and communicate are trifling compared to those used by the the oppressors to screen them out, distort the message and actively undermine and subvert. And this imbalance will remain. In short, if the aim is to deliver an absolute and acceptable living standard to places that don't have this, then ICTs can play a role by supporting informational and human efficiencies. If ICTs are thought of as a new weapon that can be used to dramatically redress the power imbalances underlying global poverty and oppression, then I think this is an overstatement. Useful tools, yes. Magic weapon, no. Indeed, these same technologies can also be used to maintain or augment the catastrophic political divisions that exist WITHIN some developing countries just as much as they can be used to heal them. They are just tools after all. I remember reading some recent Western research on self report measures of subjective well-being (happiness for the rest of us). This suggested that the break point of income required for people to be happy was pretty low (in a Western sense) - from memory, something between US$5-10,000. That's when basic services appear to be possible. Beyond that, and despite the material frenzy that typifies much of the world, it appears that genetic factors are a much greater determinant of how we feel about each day and our life generally, rather than whether we have a porsche in the garage. I guess that explains why some of the grossly affluent are proactive in ending their days just a bit earlier than expected. Rather obviously, it's difficult to be happy when drinking from puddles and half one's children are dead before their fifth birthday. If, to use this example, ICTs can be used to deliver the water resource information, skills and support to redress such situations, I'm all for it. However, I'm not sure that they will have much role in changing the network of human power relationships that have determined and tolerated these and similar circumstances for so long. Despite every technological and social innovation, politics remain politics. Perry Morrison ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
I really don't understand the purpose in your response. You talk about hospitals, social development, etc. I only discuss providing the foundation, the tool necessary before activities can commence. Secondly, I am far less keen to impose on different cultures a single or limited conception of social development. I would much rather provide a tool that allows each to participate and develop as they feel most suitable, and to later advance as appropriate to their context. I see this as a basic human right. I do not seek to forge cultures in my vision, and have no ulterior motive. Telecenters are fine, simply representing least effective investment. They serve smaller populations, and on limited geographic and time availability. In fact, they don't even address the need for improved application platforms, providing services such as VoIP. I suggest that if they didn't employ computers, you'd receive NO funding for them whatsoever. I think there's another definition problem here. What is a social divide, if not the unequitable provision of opportunity? Telecenters, while helping a minority, institutionalize a divide only because the resources necessary to expend are no longer available to develop even one, equitable, low-cost network and applications platform. BTW, a low-cost universal network available round-the-clock would certainly come in handy for those bereft of access to medical assistance. Techno-structure? I think it a little unbalanced to blame the obvious inappropriate relationship between government and business and, being in a democracy, turn around and speak of social development. Are you not also responsible? I urge you seek cure for your own ills first. Tell the government there needs to be more than a half-dozen webs residing on the Internet, and one should be low-cost, universal and provide access to basic communication applications. The plain fact is that the money exists to end the digital divide, and has always existed. It is being spent less effectively, in a manner that will not resolve the digital divide, but develop a political constituency. Our civil watchdogs are being paid off. This is not a mystery but plainly evident for anyone who understands the technologies involved. Its great to talk of social development. It's important. But at this time it, like telecenters, tends to deflect the sad truth that we are not fulfilling our real responsibilities. Funding, like technology, is not the goal. Both rely on the methods in which they're deployed. I suggest we know this already. Alan Levy Mexico, D.F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michel J. Menou wrote: My true goal is to achieve universal access to IP communications. It is possible, if sufficient political will is created. This requires voices, nothing more. Fine but this is not the only fundamental issue in development. The digital divide solely exists due to a surprising few reasons. While Mr. Levy's presentation of the vicious logic of telecom markets is quite appropriate, the digital divide is of limited concern if not considered as part of the overall social divide. It does not matter much to be able to call emergency assistance if one cannot pay for the treatment in the hospital and have to. snip [More ominously, one might conclude government does understand this, and is willing to sacrifice generations to gain tighter control over communications, and a subsequent power to participate in determining who in the future will own the small number of large content producers. This creates franchises (ie. Disney) and also generates taxes from worldwide sources.] This, and all the demonstration that preceded is certainly part of the picture. But government should be considered here a shorthand for techno-structure so much governments and big business have incestuous relations at this time. However, it is unlikely that change could occur in any area, much less the telecom one, as long as the overall premises and foundations of social order will remain unchanged. snip Sadly, no one believes a minimum degree of access to communications, to basic information-exchange, should be considered a basic human right. Sadly, no one recognizes the cost for failing to share equitably such right. Sadly, no one has made proper use of their $5.00 calculator. Well, Mr. Levy may feel lonely but there are plenty of people and organizations who did and act about these issues. Not least the telecentres which he said in another message, if I got it correctly, are not appropriate. They may not be from his perspective of universal individual access to telecoms. But true telecentres do not seek to provide acces to telecoms, they seek to support social transformation efforts by the communities themselves, using telecom facilities whenever they can be of help. ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message,
Re: [GKD] Acknowledging the Digital Divide
A quick reaction to Monday, December 17, 2001, 6:05:20 PM, Alan Levy wrote: My true goal is to achieve universal access to IP communications. It is possible, if sufficient political will is created. This requires voices, nothing more. Fine but this is not the only fundamental issue in development. The digital divide solely exists due to a surprising few reasons. While Mr. Levy's presentation of the vicious logic of telecom markets is quite appropriate, the digital divide is of limited concern if not considered as part of the overall social divide. It does not matter much to be able to call emergency assistance if one cannot pay for the treatment in the hospital and have to. snip [More ominously, one might conclude government does understand this, and is willing to sacrifice generations to gain tighter control over communications, and a subsequent power to participate in determining who in the future will own the small number of large content producers. This creates franchises (ie. Disney) and also generates taxes from worldwide sources.] This, and all the demonstration that preceded is certainly part of the picture. But government should be considered here a shorthand for techno-structure so much governments and big business have incestuous relations at this time. However, it is unlikely that change could occur in any area, much less the telecom one, as long as the overall premises and foundations of social order will remain unchanged. snip Sadly, no one believes a minimum degree of access to communications, to basic information-exchange, should be considered a basic human right. Sadly, no one recognizes the cost for failing to share equitably such right. Sadly, no one has made proper use of their $5.00 calculator. Well, Mr. Levy may feel lonely but there are plenty of people and organizations who did and act about these issues. Not least the telecentres which he said in another message, if I got it correctly, are not appropriate. They may not be from his perspective of universal individual access to telecoms. But true telecentres do not seek to provide acces to telecoms, they seek to support social transformation efforts by the communities themselves, using telecom facilities whenever they can be of help. Michel Menou ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org
