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

Sat Jun 14 12:54:22 EDT 2008

And this is not only in developing countries. Quoting Viviane Reding EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media below. 

"In today's society, access to information by all citizens is a right as well as a condition for prosperity. It is neither morally acceptable nor economically sustainable to leave millions of people behind, unable to use Information and Communications Technologies to their advantage" said Viviane Reding EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media. "With today's initiative, the Commission reinforces its commitment to overcoming digital exclusion in Europe. Progress has been only half as fast as it should be. The Commission is sending today a clear signal to all parties concerned: industry, regulators and governments that we must act together now to ensure a barrier-free information society for all." 

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1804&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 

By the way EU already uses the term "internet for all', it did so in one recent document. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/769&format=PDF&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 

further quotes from an EU website..

"….hampered by market failures in rural and remote areas. In such cases, well-targeted state aid may therefore be appropriate, e.g. in the form of public private partnerships to support the construction of open networks. But we have to make sure that state aid does not crowd out private initiative, nor distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.” 

“Where there are genuine market failures, the EU Structural Funds play a vital role in stimulating investments in broadband infrastructure and services, boosting competitiveness and innovation and enabling all regions of Europe to participate fully in the knowledge economy", added Commissioner Danuta Hübner, Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy. 

"Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, stressed: “Thanks to our new Rural Development policy, money is now being increasingly focused on creating new business opportunities in the countryside. There is a particularly strong concentration on broadband and information and communication technologies, where we already finance projects under our LEADER initiative – from the north of Scotland to the south of Spain. We now want to put them into the mainstream of our Rural Development programmes. The Rural Development fund is worth €70 billion between 2007-2013, with national funding on top. I urge Member States to tap the potential of broadband in their national Rural Development strategies.”
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/340&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 

More than a bit strange that Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus seems to  be caught in two minds about this...

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Parminder'
> Subject: RE: [governance] new paper on the Hyderaband [sic] programme
> 
> Milton,
> 
> To reinforce and support Parminder's point, in a very large part of the
> developing world Universal Service policies are in place (and Universal
> Service funds are being collected) as a basis for (wait for it) the
> realization of "universal service" i.e. universal service now being
> reintepreted from universal telephone service to universal internet
> access... (I happen at the moment to be in the airport of one of those
> jurisdictions that is in the process of spending a very very considerable
> amount of money in support of this mission having collected these funds
> under a program explicity designated Universal Services for Under Serviced
> areas...
> 
> (I should also add that after meeting with senior official involved
> intensively over the last few days, I have no doubt whatsoever that their
> ultimate goal is "universal service/universal access" and that they are
> prepared to back this broader mission with an appropriate enabling
> institutional structure and in full recognition of the technical
> requirements for the achievement of this (in part that is what we have
> been
> discussing).
> 
> BTW, I also think the folks I have been meeting with would consider your
> position either derisory (that you have no idea of the reality of their
> particular local telecom/Internet circumstances) or personally and
> nationally insulting (that they and their national government don't know
> what they doing).
> 
> Thus, I see nothing either in logic or in practice which would not allow
> us
> to turn the syllogism around and indicate that universal access is
> something
> which many countries are looking to achieve by means of the modality of
> (wait for it again) policies and practices supportive of Universal
> Service...
> 
> Whether or not (or the degree to which) they achieve this goal is a matter
> of resources and sustained political will (highly variable of course,
> across
> the world) but that this is the stated (and a most desirable) goal is I
> would suggest unarguable in virtually any jurisdiction which doesn't have
> a
> President and apparently at least a portion of its intelligentsia who
> evidently are (whether by willfulness or disposition) profoundly unaware
> and
> incurious concerning the larger world.
> 
> MG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: June 13, 2008 3:09 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]
> >
> > 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

____________________________________________________________
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