Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?

2004-12-20 Thread Ken DiPietro
Dear GKD Members,

As an ISP that uses alternative technologies to deliver connectivity I
believe that I can not only speak with some authority on this subject
but also offer some insight. I have opted for an in-line approach so as
to preserve continuity in the discussion.


On 12/10/04, Cornelio Hopmann wrote:

 To state it: in many cases they should not!...and not for the sake of
 avoiding spending but rather to avoid harming the Developing
 Countries.

I am not sure how a proper implementation of communications
infrastructure could harm a developing country - the key point being
proper implementation. Technology isn't an inherently good or bad thing;
it is how it is deployed and then used that determines if it is helpful
or harmful.


 Why? Investing in and operating ICT-infrastructure takes money. This
 money may be spent in 3 different ways:
 
 (a) Paying for equipment (or reducing it's price) to be donated
 (b) Subsidizing material Operation-costs (like communication lines,
 energy etc.)
 (c) Paying local personnel totally or partially
 
 Let's see now position by position:
 
 (a) Actually the money goes to vendors of equipment, not to
 beneficiaries (i.e. it gives access to a market where otherwise there
 would be no access). Moreover -due to the high operation-costs- in many
 cases recipients of these donations find themselves either obliged to
 spend where otherwise they would not have spent a cent or simply not use
 the donated equipment.

Please allow me to respectfully disagree with you. Yes, the money goes
to vendors who provide the necessary equipment and we would all like to
think this is done with a careful eye to securing the best pricing much
like would happen when a small businessman purchases equipment for his
own company. Does this directly help the local economy? No, but it does
provide the raw material that will help the recipients.

The trap you mention is when a poorly thought out plan that doesn't
properly take into account real costs or replacement costs is rolled
out. This type of inadequate  planning causes failures regardless of
where this is executed. The idea that anyone would put together a plan
that forces high costs on to anyone is a sure sign that the
administration should be replaced - not the technology.

Any plan that is suggested needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure
there is no hidden costs and that the real benefit is realized as
opposed to causing harm.


 (b) Specifically if we talk about subsidizing communication costs, the
 money again goes to the big players not the beneficiaries. Again it
 opens a market that otherwise would not be accessible. Additionally in
 many, many countries local communication costs are artificially inflated
 by a monopoly situation or by the fact that local Telco's have to feed
 so many interested parties -from corrupt executives to corrupt
 politicians- that the TELCO-business is closer to Mafia-racketeering
 than to an honest business. Foreign money would allow them to perpetuate
 this situation.

I fail to see why anyone would put additional complimentary
infrastructure in place when this type of problem is known to exist. We
are not interested in forcing international communications on someone
who doesn't know anyone in other countries. What would be the benefit to
anyone in that situation? So what would help? The ability to communicate
with the village a few miles away and access to informational resources.
As an ISP I can reliably tell you that the overwhelming portion of our
traffic stays in our borders. Anyone who wishes to make an international
call should use the existing telecommunications infrastructure, otherwise
we risk their wrath.

This type of communication infrastructure can be put in place
independent of the local telecommunications concerns and in areas where
this scenario is likely to be a problem the incumbents should be avoided
at every possible juncture. As text messaging is useless to anyone
illiterate we need to provide the ability to record a voice message and
deliver it to wherever it needs to be sent FOR FREE.

Better still, a video recording service would allow for both picture and
sound to be recorded, transmitted, received on the other end, listened
to so that an answer can be recorded and sent back. All of this can be
accomplished without touching the telephone infrastructure and more
importantly this can be done very inexpensively.

This very same infrastructure could also be used to transmit information
on any subject. In other words, someone in a remote location might need
medical information as to how to treat a burn (for example) and they
could make a request for this information, transmit the request and the
correct information could be returned back to them in a multimedia
format. Again, there would be no cost incurred utilizing a system like
this other than replacement should a device break.


 (c) Even though theoretically possible, this one is the least common
 option I've seen...and 

Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?

2004-12-20 Thread Darrell Owen
Dear Colleagues:

Cornelio Hopmann makes a number of correct observations, but at least in
my mind, the focus of the discussion needs to be expanded in order to
get a clearer picture as to the issue of subsidizing the Internet. As
defined, the points Cornelio makes is a bit like focusing on the
dynamics of building a road, and trying to determine its value by only
looking at those elements associated with the direct construction of the
road. The real value of building an infrastructure, be it telecom,
internet, or a road, lies not in its construction, nor even its
operation, but rather, in its use.

If these infrastructures are put into locations and settings where there
is no leveraging of the investment, then Cornelio's arguments would be
correct. But, if these investments are put into locations such that the
infrastructure is leveraged, then it doesn't hold up; at least not in my
mind. When an Internet infrastructure can expand delivery of education,
economic opportunity, expand markets, improve health care, improve
agricultural production or increase prices paid to the farms for their
crops, then the benefits will likely be such as to overcome any downside
arguments associated with subsidizations associated with building the
infrastructure.

Few would make the argument of ICT for ICT's sake, and this would extend
to there not being much of a case to be made for subsidies simply for
infrastructure's sake. But an argument for infrastructure-related
subsidies to achieve targeted value-added use, makes the equation look a
lot more promising.

And as Cornelio points out, doing without subsidies would be better than
with them if the local economics make this possible. In many locations
it simply doesn't. And for sure, any action in this arena should have a
strong focus on targeted results that focus on value-added use, not the
infrastructure itself.


Darrell Owen




***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization***
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/


Re: [GKD] Community Planning Models - What is Everyone Using?

2004-12-20 Thread Lee Thorn
On 12/09/04, Peter Burgess wrote:

 The sort of modelling I am looking for is a (much simplified) village
 version of the UN System of National Accounts

As a community organizer I have found the thinking of these two people
helpful, especially when it comes to examining the engines of economic
development in poorer communities:

Jane Jacobs:  
http://www.newcolonist.com/jane_jacobs.html

John L. McKnight:  
http://www.fordfound.org/elibrary/documents/5013/010.cfm


McKnight speaks directly about assets. Jacobs speaks about, among other
things, looking at economics from the vantage point of the street. What
I like about Jacobs is her focus on real life.

I believe they both help us get out of certain boxes. Whether or not
they put us in other boxes is for others to say.


Cheers,

Lee


Jhai Foundation
Lee Thorn
Chair
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.jhai.org

350 Townsend St., Ste. 309
San Francisco, CA 94107 USA
tel: 1 415 344 0360
fax: 1 415 344 0360
mobile: 1 415 420 2870





***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization***
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/


Re: [GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?

2004-12-20 Thread Martin Klein
Dear Colleagues,

To me, it seems that subsidies are useful as a way to exploit
bifurcation points in the development of the bottom of the pyramid.

MNCs (multinational corporations) in developed countries should be
stimulated to start entrepreneurial ventures in developing countries as
well as invest in locals who wish to pursue such ventures. This means
that these MNCs invest in the ICT-structure and share in the
accompanying gains. For the MNCs it will be crucial whether they are
able to design a profitable business model.

In all these cases in which MNCs enter the BOP-countries, locals need to
play a central role. So, although developed countries may initiate the
entrepreneurial activities, locals (work and knowledge) and MNCs
(knowledge) work together to make it all work.

For MNCs, a main focus is the development of a profitable (thus
innovative) business model. The role of governments of developed
countries then depends on what MNCs need from these governments in
order for the MNCs to be able to have a profitable business model in
place.

Governments of developed countries could, for example, contribute by
subsidizing the education of locals to use the ICT that is offered.
These same locals can then again educate other locals and as the market
grows in size, locals can start their own ventures in educating the
market.

Therefore, it seems to me that some form of subsidizing isn't so bad
for as far as it fulfills certain conditions:

- The business model makes sufficient use of locals.

- Subsidizing by governments of developed countries is aimed at those
aspects of the business model in which the MNC needs help to put a
profitable business model in place (against reasonable costs).

- The initiative of the MNC helps to make use of bifurcation points in
the development of the BOP, which makes it possible for the subsidies to
be temporary.

- As you pointed out, the subsidies need to reach the locals personally.


Regards,

Martin


On 12/10/04, Cornelio Hopmann wrote:

 As it was tacitly touched upon in our recent focused discussion and is a
 hot topic for WSIS-2005, I would be interested in other opinions.
 
 To state it: in many cases they should not!...and not for the sake of
 avoiding spending but rather to avoid harming the Developing
 Countries.
 
 Why? Investing in and operating ICT-infrastructure takes money. This
 money may be spent in 3 different ways:
 
 (a) Paying for equipment (or reducing it's price) to be donated
 (b) Subsidizing material Operation-costs (like communication lines,
 energy etc.)
 (c) Paying local personnel totally or partially

..snip...




***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization***
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/