[governance] the sad broadband workshop...
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 06:10:19 EST 2009
Excellent comment, Carlos! The first communication I've seen from the IGF
that deals with issues of possible concern to the "other 5 billion...
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:42 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] the sad broadband workshop...
Hi people,
I come from one of the ten largest economies in the world, with nearly
200 million people, 8.5 million km2, and 5.564 municipalities, where 94%
of the people do *not* have access to any form of broadband - the "B" in
the famous BRIC acronym.
I am just coming out of the IGF workshop "Expanding broadband access for
a global Internet economy: development dimensions". I left the workshop
a bit shocked with the concepts expressed, not by the AT&T
representative (who not surprisingly said AT&T subdsidiaries countries
other than the USA should be considered local companies because they
employ local people), who as usual is just doing his job in defending
the so-called "market", but by other speeches which seemed to completely
ignore that, in most of our contries, there is a de facto monopoly or
cartel situation regarding the telco infrastructure, and that public
policy ought to centrally take this into account if the aim is to
universalize broadband access with quality to all families.
One of the speakers (from LIRNEasia) said that "lower prices require
lower costs" and therefore one should just "phase out universal access
levies and rationalize taxes". I retorted that pricing per Mb/s of ADSL
broadband in São Paulo might be 65 times higher than the same price
charged by the same company in London -- and therefore no amount of
levies or taxes would justify such scandalous pricing difference, not to
speak of the much lower QoS.
I suggested that, instead of eliminating the universal service funds
(whose levies are a very small portion of price composition of
broadband), we should insist on reforming policy regarding the use of
these funds. The reply I heard was that it makes no sense to keep funds
that are not used or are squandered (!!). Impact of the fund's levy in
Brazil is just 1% of the price of the fixed line telephone connection --
its impact in the price of broadband (a separate bill even if the
service is not unbundled) is zero.
There was also a recommendation that we should be "gentle on QoS" to
facilitate things regarding universalization of access -- fascinating.
Again, examples abound in which telcos guarantee only 10% of the nominal
contracted rate, and in practice this might be even less. Should we just
agree with absurds like this in the name of "it is better to have
something than nothing"???
And then there is the crucial question of unbundling, central to the
policy debate in the developed countries as it directly impacts
universalization through an effective reduction of prices for the final
user. It is a major challenge for broadband public policy in developing
countries, where regulators are usually in the hands of the telco
cartels. The word was not mentioned (not a single time) by anyone in the
panel, as if irrelevant to the development dimensions of broadband.
The speaker also mentioned that the "need" to reduce costs for the big
telcos would require reduction of international bandwidth costs. One of
the two big carriers in Brazil, a Brazilian conglomerate, owns redundant
fiber running from Brazil to Miami in rings passing through countries in
the Caribbean and Central America. They own their own international
link, in summary. So do the other carrier in the de facto duopoly -- a
major operator from Europe. This does not make any difference in pricing
for the final user, although it does contribute to their profits in
Brazil being far higher than in Europe for example.
Finally, the fascination with mobile. Of course the AT&T speaker started
his talk by waving a fancy iPhone to the audience -- mostly natural for
a commercial wireless giant. But the infoDev representative and others
mentioned mobile as a "solution" for the poor, and not even bothered to
separate the discussion in the two main topics here: first, the mobile
phone as a connectivity device to enable the user to fully use the
Internet through a friendly human-machine interface, be it a common PC
or special equipment for people with disabilities; second, the phone
itself as *the* alternative to the full user experience that a PC or
similar might provide. It seems the agency bureaucrats are satisfied
with having two castes of users: a small minority of the ones who can
fully use the Internet as it evolves requiring more and more multimedia
capabilities on both sides (server and client), and the ones relegated
to a small device on which it is barely possible to type small messages.
In the first regional LA&C preparatory meeting for the IGF, in 2008, a
representative of a major telco said we should not worry about bringing
the next billion to the Internet -- they have cell phones, so they are
connected already, problem solved. I wonder if this executive would take
the place of a carpenter looking for a job, who has to compose and send
by email his CV together with images of letters of recommendation to his
would-be employer, and had nothing but a cell phone (smart or not) to do
it. Not to speak of comparing the executive's thin-fingered hands of a
pianist with the big callous hands of the carpenter.
fraternal regards
--c.a. ____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list