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

[Parminder]

Milton

 

> 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.

 

It was nothing to do with an IGC process or anything... but this was really
the first time I had heard anyone at all speak clearly against universal
service obligations as a policy position, and so said this to make a point
about how hopelessly a position against USOs is in a minority in the civil
society space that we discuss this issue. 

 

>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.

 

They spoke about 'abandoning' the 'universalization' term, and not universal
access.  I have made the distinction in my last email. There is no point
repeating the same thing. And I am very sure that both Ken and Adam strongly
support universal access obligations/ funds. 

 

> >[ 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.

> 

 

Calling for markets to be left alone in the area of Internet access, without
any public interventions, without understanding the complexities and
diversities of the situations in developing countries is no less rhetorical.
It is just hegemony of ideology that one position is made to sound like
normal and natural, and the other unnatural, and abnormal, and therefore
requiring special justifications. We wont give up progressive efforts in the
South to mitigate risks on 'policy confusion' in the North. 

 

Speaking about institutional frameworks to enforce, what framework do we
have globally to enforce FoE, it is almost entirely subject to national
jurisdictions, so why waste out time????

 

 

> I don't have time to go on. Economic decisions are all about incremental

> growth, budget constraints, efficiency and trade offs.

 

> But this is based on fallacious economic thinking and illustrates

> perfectly why I am resisting your rhetorical incursions into universal

> access policy.

 

You can sit in the US and say whatever. India is rolling out its Common
Services Centres (1,00,000 of them) to reach connectively along with its
paraphernalia to rural India. And most developing countries are developing
some such programs. 

 

I think you can just not see the Internet as an important social and
development infrastructure, especially for developing countries, which
therefore often require special 'public' support.  I know the issue is not
about just Internet. You don't see 'development' as anything else than a
process where people and communities are freed from the state's oppression,
and then things just take off. Overwhelmingly, development in developing
countries, as was in developed countries when they were developing, is seen
as a process that require significant 'public' planning and support.  This
difference of view is the real issue here, and we are fighting a proxy
battle on 'universal access to the internet' issue. 

 

I would willingly donate the entire US Iraq war budget to Indian

> telecom development

 

 

I am willing to receive it :-). Thanks, while we work out the modalities.  

 

Parminder 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]

> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 3:39 AM

> 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]

> >

> > 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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080614/f9720d34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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