FC: Other views on U.N. report and guaranteeing Net access by 2005

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[I am doing a CNN.com chat on Microsoft antitrust that is beginning right 
now, 1 pm ET. Log in at http://www.cnn.com/chat/auditorium.html --Declan]

************

> From: "Steve Barnes" <sbarnes () nortelnetworks com>
> To: declan () well com
> Subject: RE: U.N. report says governments should guarantee Net access by 2 005
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:47:26 -0400
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>
>
> >   UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- By 2005, everyone in the world should have access
> >to the Internet even if they have to walk for half a day to the nearest
> >computer or cell phone, experts said in a report to the United Nations.
>
> The Maitland Commission report said the same thing about simple telephony 
> in the early 1980's.  It still has not happened in Africa.  In fact, some 
> areas of Africa have regressed since that time (i.e. Congo).  Don't hold 
> your breath, this one will not happen until the politicians stop the wars 
> that hold back economic development.
>
> Stephen D. Barnes
> Nortel Networks
> sbarnes () nortelnetworks com
>
> Views and opinions expressed in this message are my own, except where
> they are specifically stated to be the views of my employer or another
> person or entity.


************

*********

> From: "Jim Harper" <jim.harper () policycounsel com>
> To: <declan () well com>
> Subject: Re: U.N. report says governments should guarantee Net access by 2005
> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:28:25 -0400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
>
>       Currently less than 5 percent of the world population is benefiting
> from the tens of billions of dollars of E-commerce, the report said, and
> developing countries risk not ``just being marginalized but completely
> bypassed'' by the new global market.
>
> Declan:
>
> The quoted text shows some mighty economic ignorance, part of which
> assuredly drives these kinds of proposals.  As the U.S. Department of
> Commerce has noted twice (The Emerging Digital Economy 1998 & '99), B2B
> e-commerce is lowering purchasing costs, reducing inventories, and lowering
> cycle times (time to build new products).  These efficiencies benefit anyone
> who purchases goods and services in competitive markets, whether they do so
> online or off.  You don't have to burn your retinas to benefit from
> e-commerce.
>
> Five percent is more likely the portion of the world's population that is
> NOT benefitting from e-commerce.  Last week, for example, Secretary Glickman
> announced that USDA is sending 50,000 metric tons of wheat to North Korea.
> That wheat will be grown, harvested, stored, and shipped with e-commerce
> lowering costs and increasing availability all along the way.  Better that
> North Korea have its own e-commerce infrastructure, of course, but the
> people there are just a wee bit too taxed and regulated . . . .
>
> Jim

***********

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:00:53 -0400
> To: declan () well com
> From: Mychelle Tremblay <myt () mlink net>
> Subject: Re: FC: U.N. report says governments should guarantee Net
>   access by  2005
>
> Hello Declan,
>
> At 02:20 AM 6/21/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Call me heartless, but as much as I'd like to see everyone in the world
> >hooked up to the Net (which will of course eventually happen, at least for
> >97%+ of us), I'm not sure that additional taxation or even partial
> >government funding is the way to do it. Technologies take a while to
> >trickle down from the rich to the poor -- who had refrigerators, indoor
> >plumbing, televisions first? The process is a natural, organic one; it
> >takes time, and in the end it's the most efficient way. I don't see much
> >recognition of this in these U.N. pronouncements (though I haven't been
> >able to find the actual text of this particular report online). If
> >anything, the Net seems to be spreading much faster than its related
> >predecessors, which is a cause for not alarm but celebration. --Declan
> >*********
>
> About 1,5 billion people on this planet don't have access to potable water
> and another 2,9 billion don't have access to basic sanitary infrastructures
> like toilets. The "old" trickle down effect theory is, in my view, a very
> simplistic way of looking at this problem, with all due respect.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mychelle

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------