[governance] IGF review

Mon May 25 11:32:32 EDT 2009

Ah Milton, the blind faith in the "trickle down" canard...

I understand that the cost of yachts and Manhattan penthouses, (all with the
latest in operating efficiences) has thanks to others with such blind faith,
now collapsed but I'm not as yet seeing any benefits... 

Reality check--reducing the cost of Internet access from $50/mon. to
$30/mon. has little impact on those whose entire earnings are $30/mon.

Providing an appropriate physical/social/economic (and stable profit)
environment so that those who have sufficient income to pay $30/mon. for the
Internet can have the opportunity to use their earnings and spend it in this
way, in many instances takes a very very large proportion of the "addiitonal
revenues and economic benefits" that these investments generate...hence the
closing of the loop as can be seen in the accelerating disparities between
the impoverished areas both rural and urban and the enclaves of high tech
First World glitter in many bi-modal economies/societies (such as South
Africa) (and yes there is advance in income and well-being among the
majority population in South Africa for example, but the disparities -- to a
considerable degree fueled by technology -- are growing even faster.

It's not the absence of competition among telecom providers that prevents
people earning $30/mon from getting Internet access it is the fact that they
are earning $30/mon and they have little means to improve their positions in
the absence of directed public policy in support of those developments.

My earlier point though which is rather different is that in the absence of
a whole range of publicly supported (whether by funding or policy or some
combination of both) institutional mechanisms--training, public access,
appropriate content development, appropriate service design and so on--a
community informatics--the simple introduction of "competition" has no
chance to "trickle down" since no useable "trickle path" exists between the
benefits "fountainhead" and the end user "stand pump"... 

MBG

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and
Training Vancouver, CANADA and Cape Town, SA
http://www.communityinformatics.net
CA tel. +1-604-602-0624
SA cell 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:47 AM
To: 'McTim'; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF review

When the costs of something -- anything -- are pushed down by competition
and technical innovation, everyone benefits (except perhaps those who
operated monopolies built around higher-cost system). So if it once was too
expensive to build facilities into poorer areas, then cost reductions
obviously especially benefit those with less money or those whose
geographical situation creates higher costs. So I reject absolutely
Gurstein's assertion that liberalization creates a zero-sum game which
benefits only the already-wealthy. Furthermore, I also challenge his
assertion that liberalization and a thriving market reduces the
opportunities for public intervention. Insofar as those strategies succeed
in generating additional revenues and economic benefit, there is more wealth
to be redistributed via public intervention, and if there is no wealth,
there is nothing to redistribute. Liberalization of telecom is often
associated with the reform and restructuring of universal service programs,
making them more targeted and efficient, and generating more revenues which
can be used to ameliorate poverty. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Cc: Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF review
> 
> On 5/24/09, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Milton,
> >
> >  There is in many (most?) cases no direct (and arguably little or no
> >  indirect) connection between the "most developed
> infrastructure" or "the
> >  strongest content industries" and "development"--certainly
> among the poorest
> >  and the least developed populations...
> >
> >  There are in many cases statistical associations because
> infrastructure and
> >  content industries support economic and social advance
> among the alteady
> >  developed sections of those societies, but the reality is
> very different on
> >  the ground as can be seen quite directly for example in
> India where highly
> >  sophisticated inftrastructure/content development has had
> little or no
> >  impact on the bulk of the rural population.
> >
> >  I'm now somewhat familiar with the situation for example
> in South Africa
> >  where further liberalization whether of infrastructure or
> of content is
> >  likely in fact to be an impediment to development by
> restricting the
> >  opportunities for public sector intervention precisely to support 
> > development among the 85% of the population which is currently not
> > effectively engaged with/enabled by the quite advanced
> infrastructure and
> >  content industries in that country.
> >
> >  Whether the State or not for profits would or could do any
> better is not
> >  something I want to argue in this context, but at least as
> I see the SA
> >  situation for example, further liberalization (i.e. more
> competition) will
> >  lead to a reduction in cost for the already connected and
> have virtually no
> >  effect on the not connected.
> 
> hmm,  this project (in SA, but supported by a variety of folk
> worldwide) might prove you wrong.
> 
> http://www.villagetelco.org/2009/05/first-phone-call-on-mp-arc
hitecture/
> 
> and an early implementation of it:
> 
> http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/blogs/yabba-dabba-do
> 
> and Telkom complained to the regulator that Dabba was "interfering" 
> with their service and had ICASA confiscate their kit.
> 
> I for one would applaud "restricting the opportunities for public 
> sector intervention", if by public sector you mean Telkom SA!
> 
> My original point in this thread was that African CS can actually DO 
> something instead of just talking about doing something (at the IGF).
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> =

____________________________________________________________
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