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

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
> 
> Ideology cannot be separated from advocacy, so that's fine. 

:-) But ideological disagreements will almost certainly prevent you from
filing an advocacy statement in this instance. 

> 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
[snip]
> So why the will of such a small minority should keep 
> prevailing in and informing our group's positions?

Aha, "suspected" consensus (is this a new version of "declared
consensus? ;-)) Hmmm, of the huge masses of 6 or 7 people who have
addressed this issue, 3 or 4, including Ken and Adam, have agreed to
abandon the U-word.

>[ MM asserts] that 
> universal service obligations, in some way or the other, are not
required for universal
> access. 

That's not what I said. What I said was that calling for universal
access without an institutional framework to define it, deliver and
enforce USOs, and without a price tag, is meaningless rhetoric, and that
it risks being confused with retrograde policies.   

> 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. 

Universal access does not exist anywhere in the world, except perhaps
for a few very dense inner cities.  
But that of course depends on how you define it. 
 
> 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. 

But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates
perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal
access policy. To say that fiber backbones run within 50 km of most
Indian villages implies that it would be easy and cheap to connect them
all (tens of thousands, right? or is it hundreds of thousands of
villages?) But the vast majority of the costs associated with providing
access are in the electronics and gear and labor associated with the
so-called last mile. And what happens after you have spent this enormous
amount? Where does the money come from? And how many PCs are in those
villages? Will you pay for those, too? How much traffic will those
villages generate? How much of that infrastructure will they be able to
sustain through subscription charges? Or will it all be free? Does India
have the money to do this? What if the investment was wasted, and a it
is not used and a cheaper technology comes along 18 months later? You've
just pissed away someone's health care or education funds. 

Further, You have decided that fixed-line Internet access is all that
counts. But it may be that, in a few years, mobile internet access can
reach all these villages at a tiny fraction of the cost. 

I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental
growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs. I am in favor of
universal access, but that and a $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee.
Indeed, I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian
telecom development under your administration, I guess if we are going
to waste $100 billion a year we may as well give it to someone with good
intentions. 

____________________________________________________________
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