[governance] Internet as a commons/ public good

[Carlos A. Afonso]

I have to say this: the only thing missing to complete this defence of 
unrestrained neoliberal allegiance to the market God by MM is that he 
declares himself a staunch Republican :)

How would the neoliberal camp deal with this: in Brazil there was 
privatization (actually a near-donation of our infra to a group of 
international entrepreneurs in a process known as "privataria" by the 
Fernando Henrique Cardoso government -- several of them should be in 
jail according to a legal action standing dormant in the drawer of the 
Attorney General). Now this cartel (controlled by a Mexican and four 
European conglomerates) not only fixes prices (among the highest in the 
world) but determines which municipality will have which services 
according to a single rule: the rate of return on investment. Obvious, 
they are private companies.

The universal service is gone with privatization, and even the 
regulation that fixed telephony should be subject to universalization 
standards is no longer followed. But control of Anatel by this cartel 
ensures that they get a minimum of US$20 per month on any fixed line (a 
value which increased several times above inflation since 
privatization). Our campaign to abolish this "private tax" has so far 
not been successful.

Control of Anatel and of the Ministry of Comm by this cartel also means 
the original rule that once incumbents' contracts expire all assets 
should be returned to the State (the assets reversibility clause) has 
also been relaxed, to the point that incumbents are illegally selling 
the most valuable assets (like large, prime real estate in São Paulo).

Worse, the Ministry, in order to entice the companies to go where there 
is lower return to investment (most Brazilian municipalities) has 
promised to donate those assets to the companies -- today this means 
about US$40 billion, including several billions they have already sold 
and should be criminally accounted for! So much for free enterprise and 
other hollow blablablas. We are now engaged in a campaign to prohibit 
the Ministry to do that, mind you, in a government otherwise recognized 
for its social justice vision and practice.

Perfect market... out of it there is nothingness -- the wonderful 
neoliberal illusion Aristotelian MM loves.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 04/16/2013 10:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>
> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests.
>
> [Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real scientific basis for your claim.
>
> I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change things for the better?
>
> If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors.
>
> I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it.
>
> Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology.
>
> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions.
>
> [Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, because it worked.
>
> Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality.
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t