Re: [GKD] India Adopts Universal Access (fwd)

["Clement M. Henry" <chenry@mail.la.utexas.edu>]

Here is an entry into an interesting discussing supported by a World Bank
network of well meaning people...discussing hos the realities of power are
not particularly altered by the Internet and the communications
revolution...power just adapts and dominates the new technologies...whaty
do you think?

*****************************
Clement M. Henry
Professor of Government
University of Texas at Austin
Austin TX 78712
tel 471-5121, fax 471-1061

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 13:30:57 +0930
From: Dr. Perry Morrison <perrymorrison@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: gkd@phoenix.edc.org
To: gkd@phoenix.edc.org
Subject: Re: [GKD] India Adopts Universal Access

Alan Levy wrote:

> Well, Perry, I agree to a point and have covered this in a less techie
> more socio-political email sent previously.  Herein is my argument to
> provide an equitable platform for participation, along with a defined
> group of basic communications applications.
>
> Everything is determined by the network, which is why I call for more
> networks, and the need to specifically apply applications to the minimal
> requisite network technology... to avoid cross-subsidization, achieve
> true application cost, maintain market pressure in pricing and
> innovation on information providers, and create affordable access to
> basic ICT participation. To do otherwise solely serves big business and
> big government in ways that will in time become clear are simply
> downright evil... forms of interactivity and data collection you are not
> going to like, and that cause loss of freedoms, individuality and
> identity.

I agree totally with this. Networks and their dynamics, interconnects
and traffic management, pricing and content policies etc. are exactly
what I'm on about. They're simply one form of political power structure
that can dramatically affect the real benefits of technology- especially
in terms of equity.

However, the pattern of social, commercial and political relationships
that drive network dynamics also works at all levels from
government/business down to the village level and it's powerbrokers.
Technology simply runs through the conduits of existing power
structures- usually to strengthen them or enhance their control or
position. Sometimes technologies create new conduits of power but again
these are usually controlled by the powerful. Twas ever thus.

None of this is surprising. What is surprising is the naive view that
many technologists have that somehow new technologies will change,
reverse or alter the relativities of power and control.

My point has been that technologies can create absolute gains for the
less powerful in solving practical problems--we can indeed improve some
aspects of standard of living. But the relativities will always be with
us.

As a concrete example, email and internet may improve the commercial
situation of microbusinesses in some countries through better marketing,
more flexible purchase arrangements and formation of cooperatives and
local industry groups to represent their interests. The marketing and
purchase options are just technical issues that technology solves.
Forming industry groups is a political act and the technology just makes
it easier.

Ultimately, if these efforts are very effective then they must actually
hurt someone else's interests- their market share for example. The
powerful amongst the affected parties can then use their (more powerful)
technologies to monitor their newly effective competitors and use
technological countersolutions for marketing etc. while pursuing
political strategies such as tariff building and other market
manipulation to return the status quo. Maybe in such scenarios there is
no nett gain in absolute standard of living and certainly no change to
the relativities.

> However, in understanding ICT, I project it'll take another ten years
> for most to become sufficiently conscious of this... by which time even
> a high legislative agenda won't be able even if desired... and it won't
> be... to disassemble monolithic sole-provider networks. The accompanying
> content and financial infrastructures will already be too entrenched.

Agreed. I am also quite fearful of the power of technology to inform and
to be informed on.


> This really shouldn't be a mystery for those highly educated. There are
> similarities to be found throughout history. I suggest that technology
> either clouds peoples thought processes, or provides a false belief that
> advances will continue to cure any dysfunction.  Again, history abounds
> with examples explaining it just ain't so.

Yes.

> As noted in another email I sent, a network is ubiquitous in nature,
> making a connection only an ID. As explained in my book, a low-cost
> access device required to work both with user and access device
> authentication and verification (an ID for both) eliminates potential
> for theft when borrowed. And a medium bandwidth network provides a very
> low cost applications platform.
>
> The Ma Bell history we're repeating is going to end with a far different
> outcome this time around.  What's worse than a dearth of information?

A glut of mythinformation. A dearth is noticeable and motivating. A fire
hose of superficial, narrow, self centred, materialistic and trivial
information is even worse I think. That, in my view is where we are and
it may only get worse as enormous commercial and political interests
amalgamate and centralise.

Best

Perry Morrison



------------
***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership***
To post a message, send it to: <gkd@mail.edc.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<majordomo@mail.edc.org>. 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>