[governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme

[Parminder]

Milton

> So now we are in the ideological argument...and the statement to the
> Secretariat...?

Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. And status quo
needs to change, and any time is as good as another. I suspect close to 90
percent people on this list do not agree with you that universal service
obligations, in some way or the other, are not required for universal
access. So why the will of such a small minority should keep prevailing in
and informing our group's positions?

> Of course, who is against having universal access to the Internet? the
> issue is how you get there. Fact is, access is growing very fast, almost
> everywhere where there is peace and a relatively open market.

Access to Internet in the developing is not following the same path as
mobile telephony did, and there are some very good reasons for it. Although
even universal access to telephony has almost always needed support of USOs
or some other policy instruments, almost everywhere in the world. 

India is a perfectly peaceful country, with a relatively open market. As for
spread of rural broadband - nothing is happening even with such excess of
backbone capacity that you cant imagine. A little more than 1 percent of
India fiber optic backbone capacity is used today. And fibre runs within
50-60 KM of most Indian villages. But this has not translated to access to
Internet/ broadband for rural Indians. I am enclosing the presentation I
made to the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development last
month where I trace 4 stages of 'policy understanding' for universal
Internet access in India. It has been clearly established that even supply
side policies (what to say markets alone) are not sufficient for spread of
broadband in rural areas, and demand side polices are required. 

So I think we need to go beyond what you describe as US's experience, though
I have a strong feeling that it does not completely hold even for the US... 

> Another problem is, it's not clear what institutional mechanisms are
> available to finance the "ensuring" of universal access at the global
> level,

It is not only about availability of 'international finance' but as much
about dominant ideological models, like the one you profess, that get
peddled to developing countries in various ways that we need to resist, and
I am trying to resist. That's what is 'global' about telecom access
policies, apart from international institutional mechanisms of funding. Let
us examine the real situation of developing countries, their contexts and
needs, when we speak about policies on access etc in IG arenas, or
otherwise. 

Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 9:35 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
> 
> Parminder:
> I wrote my dissertation on universal service policy as it evolved in the
> US, and have been engaged in U.S. policy debates around that topic since
> 1990. So I am fully aware of the implications of various phrasings,
> which is why I don't want to go down the road of calling for "ensuring
> universal access to the Internet." Such a call could be construed, and
> almost certainly would be construed by some, as a call for the kind of
> classical subsidy schemes that rationalized telephone monopolies and in
> many instances actually hindered the expansion of new networks and
> services by creating a social compact to restrict service delivery to a
> privileged monopoly subject to universal service obligations. I am
> unwilling to support anything that would even hint at perpetuating or
> reproducing that old model.
> 
> Of course, who is against having universal access to the Internet? the
> issue is how you get there. Fact is, access is growing very fast, almost
> everywhere where there is peace and a relatively open market. If you
> want to accelerate that process, you'd better have some solid ideas how,
> and also make sure that your proposals don't disrupt or retard the
> growth already taking place. Incidentally, the MOST important variable
> affecting telecom access is GDP, so the best way to promote
> (more-)universal access is to foster economic growth and greater wealth.
> So why not just call for "ensuring universal access to wealth"?
> 
> Another problem is, it's not clear what institutional mechanisms are
> available to finance the "ensuring" of universal access at the global
> level, nor is it clear what levels of access we are talking about, nor
> is it clear what other budget items get lost to finance that. Absent
> those institutional specifics, I feel that it is irresponsible to call
> for a goal of that sort. We've had this discussion before: you call
> things "rights" that I call "policies," and by calling them "rights"
> imho you seem to (verbally) exempt yourself from the discipline of
> putting them into the context of competing social priorities, and
> basically assume away the budget constraint that inherently and
> inescapably limits what govt policies can do.
> 
> So now we are in the ideological argument...and the statement to the
> Secretariat...?
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:25 AM
> > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
> >
> >
> >
> > Milton
> >
> > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and
> > > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate
> > time frame, such
> > > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive.
> >
> > If you read my proposal you will see that I am not asking that we
> > communicate that the suggested topic be universalisation (and
> > there is no
> > mention of rights anywhere either).
> >
> > I am agreeing that there is some difference of views on
> > 'universalization of
> > the internet' term. So I proposed 'ensuring universal access to the
> > Internet' instead of 'reaching the next billion' about which a lot of
> > discussion did take place. I saw no one specifically insisting that
> > 'reaching the next billion' should be retained (I may be
> > corrected on this).
> > We agree that 'internet for all' is a good overall theme
> > (hopefully). And
> > under it the relevant theme from a policy point of view, and
> > not a business
> > strategy point of view, is 'ensuring universal access to the Internet'
> > since, as I argued, nearly all countries, including the US I
> > think, have
> > some form of universal access policies...
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:38 PM
> > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> > > Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic]
> > programme
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > > >
> > > > However, I am not sure how the universal access part is being
> > > > dismissed so easily, and offhand, even though there was much
> > > > discussion on this issue on
> > > > the list, a little earlier..
> > >
> > > Sorry if my comment seemed so short, it was due to time
> > limitations. I
> > > was not even able to participate in the dicsussion on
> > "universalization"
> > > for the same reason.
> > >
> > > We can indeed have a rich discussion of what we mean by "rights" and
> > > what we mean by "universalization" but in the immediate
> > time frame, such
> > > a debate is unlikely to be conclusive. My understanding was
> > that that
> > > you were asking for quick advice on a statement to the
> > Secretariat. For
> > > that purpose, it seemed sufficient to simply express support or
> > > opposition to the two parts of the statement.
> > >
> > > Milton Mueller
> > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Internet Governance Project:
> > > http://internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dev Oriented Policies - CSTD May 08.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 113865 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080613/b6b61528/attachment.pdf>