Re: WORTH READING -- Study Gives High Marks to U.S. Internet - New York Times

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Hendrik Rood" <Hendrik.Rood () stratix nl>
Date: April 17, 2008 11:45:43 AM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>
Cc: <dpreed () reed com>, <markoff () nyt com>,  
<matthias.luefkens () weforum org>, <mnelson () pobox com>, <bruce () newnetworks com 
>
Subject: RE: [IP]  WORTH READING -- Study Gives High Marks to U.S.  
Internet - New York Times

Professor Farber,

I have read the report and I think parts of the comments on the IP -  
list miss the point.

This report runs into methodological problems.

Any ranking that, as in the press release accompanying it, attempts to  
digest information from rankings which discern country position at  
0.01 point differences, when the totals are above 5 for the top  
rankers, while it also comes with boatloads of inputs in the ranking  
formula, is creating fog instead of clarity.

The central issue of these benchmarks is that they calculate a so- 
called cardinal number out of ordinals (rankings).
When listing 100 countries, the average step on the sublists is  
already 1%, far above the .2% used to determine rankings in the top.
It would not surpass any so-called heteroscedasticity analysis as in  
this way it is far to sensitive for inputs and weighings variation.

The study at the levels of rankings is only usable at a very abstract  
level.
It allows to determine that we get the usual suspects in the top 10 as  
well as those at the bottom.

When one would write a serious statement, one would not state

* The US moves up three places to fourth place
* The Republic of Korea jumps into the top ten, placing ninth

Instead, one could make statements like:
The US advances its position due to the fact that it strongly improves  
in ...
South-Korea moves into the top 10 as they bettered themselves in ...

And at the dots one then lists what was the main contributor to the  
advancement.

Otherwise one could state what factors still withhold a country from  
reaching the top position and bring that kind of analysis.


With kind regards,

Hendrik Rood
--


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Verzonden: woensdag 9 april 2008 20:18
> Aan: ip
> Onderwerp: [IP] Re: WORTH READING -- Study Gives High Marks
> to U.S. Internet - New York Times
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: David P. Reed [dpreed () reed com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:38 PM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Study Gives High Marks to U.S.
> Internet - New York Times
>
> Dave, the following sentences from the report's exec summary
> suggests something entirely different from the headline in the NYT.
>
>    "The NRI aims at measuring economies' capacity to fully
> leverage ICT
>    for increased competitiveness and and development, building on a
>    mixture of hard data collected by well-respected international
>    organizations, such as the International Telecommunications Union
>    (ITU), the World Bank, and the United Nations, and survey
> data from
>    the Executive Opinion Survey conducted annually by the World
>    Economic Forum in each of the economies included in the Report."
>
>
> in other words, citizens and public good doesn't matter.
> What matters
> is business.  The business of countries is business. :-)
>
>    "The Networked Readiness Framework ... assesses:
>    - the presence of an ICT-friendly and conducive environment, by
>    looking at a number of features of the broad business environment,
>    some regulatory aspects, and the soft and hard
> infrastructure for ICT;
>
>    - the level of ICT readiness and preparation to use ICT
> of the three
>    main national stakeholders - individuals, the business sector, and
>    the government; and
>
>    - the actual use of ICT by the above three stakeholders."
>
> In other words the ranking is similar to the ranking of
> cities in the US from the point of view of businesses.  Where
> are the tax breaks, is the citizenry willing to toil hard for
> low wages to enrich distant investors, etc.
>
> Nothing about the Internet's ability to empower the end
> users.  Lots about how ICT empowers the overlords.  :-)
>
>
> David Farber wrote:
> > ________________________________________
> > From: John Markoff [markoff () nyt com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:43 PM
> > To: David Farber
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Study Gives High Marks to U.S.
> Internet - New York Times
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > News judgement is a tricky thing. Adam dispute mine, but I
> thought I
> > would pass along a portion of the official press release from WEF
> > (which I just saw)...
> >
> > Note the bullet points which indicate what they thought was
> the most
> > salient news in the report......
> >
> >
> > John Markoff
> >
> > Matthias Lüfkens, Associate Director, Tel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212 -
> > matthias.luefkens () weforum or g
> >
> > French German Italian 日本語 Spanish Portuguese 中文
> >
> > DENMARK TOPS THE GLOBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPORT 2007-2008
> >
> >        * The US moves up three places to fourth place
> >        * The Republic of Korea jumps into the top ten,
> placing ninth
> >        * Produced in cooperation with INSEAD, the Report provides
> > comparative information for business and governments
> >        * Report highlights, summary, country profiles,
> quotes, maps
> > and more at: http://www.weforum.org/gitr Geneva,
> Switzerland, 9 April
> > 2008 - Denmark is the most networked economy in the world,
> followed by
> > Sweden and Switzerland, according to The Global Information
> Technology
> > Report 2007-2008, released today by the World Economic Forum. Among
> > the top ten, the Republic of Korea (9) and, to a lesser extent, the
> > United States (4) post the most notable improvements
> (moving up 10 and
> > 3 positions, respectively).
> >
> > “The successful experience of the Nordic countries, Singapore, the
> > United States or Korea shows that a coherent government
> vision on the
> > importance of ICT, coupled with an early focus on education and
> > innovation, are key not only for spurring networked readiness, but
> > also to lay the foundations for sustainable growth,” said
> Irene Mia,
> > Senior Economist of the Global Competitiveness Network at the World
> > Economic Forum and Co-Editor of the Report.
> >
> > Published for the seventh consecutive year with record
> coverage of 127
> > economies worldwide, the Report has become the world’s most
> > comprehensive and authoritative international assessment of
> the impact
> > of ICT on the development process and the competitiveness
> of nations.
> > On Apr 9, 2008, at 6:54 AM, David Farber wrote:
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Adam Peake [ajp () glocom ac jp]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:16 AM
> > To: David Farber
> > Subject: Re: [IP] Study Gives High Marks to U.S. Internet -
> New York
> > Times
> >
> > The headline and opening paragraph are misleading.  The study's not
> > about the Internet/Internet infrastructure, as the story goes on to
> > explain it includes a range of economic and other data
> > (<http://www.insead.edu/v1/gitr/wef/main/analysis/
> > choosedatavariable.cfm>
> > some of the questions look a little weak.)
> >
> > Odd, and can see why you'd be skeptical.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/technology/09internet.html
> > >
> > > By JOHN MARKOFF
> > >
> > > Published: April 9, 2008
> > >
> > > SAN FRANCISCO -- Contradicting earlier studies,
> conventional wisdom
> > > and politicians' rhetoric, European researchers say that
> the Internet
> > > infrastructure of the United States is one of the world's best and
> > > getting better.
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
> > > Some Internet industry veterans were skeptical of the
> positive claims
> > > about the United States compared with the rest of the world.
> > > "My gut feeling is that we don't have the type of
> deployment you have
> > > abroad," said David J. Farber, an Internet pioneer and a
> professor of
> > > computer science at Carnegie Mellon University. "If you
> are looking
> > > at broadband, we have a lot of problems. We are slow as
> molasses in
> > > deploying the next generation."
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com