Net Conference| Session 2 - "Electronic Commerce in the Digital Divide Era " | |
|---|---|
 Digital Divide 1 | |
| From: Jim Johnson
(1) Moderator - temporary theme AND NIKKEI THEME | |
| I am Jim Johnson, deputy director for the Global Information Infrastructure Commission, and the moderator for this English version of the On Line conference for Nikkei's March 3 conference on the digital divide. I think that the "temporary themes" introduced by many of you are all threads in the tapestry of the broader issue which has been mislabeled as the "Digital Divide" When this label and issue were first used (probably by Larry Irving of NTIA/DOC) it was cast as a description of the current phenomena, which the data demonstrates, that the rich, well educated, English-speaking, white, men of the world were dominating the Internet, and that the poor, under educated, non-English speaking, minorities and women were being shut out. The demon that caused this divide were the computer companies that charged too much for their equipment, etc. Upon examination, however, when we look at the patterns of development for other information related technologies, we find that access to the Internet is reaching more people, of all kinds faster than any other technology has in history. Why is it that half the people of the world have still not made a telephone call? That technology has been around for more than a century, and is getting cheaper all the time. We find that the demon is the state-owned monopoly phone companies that choke access in many ways. They are causing part of the digital divide. Printed books have been around for centuries, and are getting cheaper, yet how many people in literate societies actually buy books? Or even use a free library card? The digital divide here is the lack of education, the lack of intellectual curiosity, the lack of a decision by the user to access what is free. So what causes the digital divide: While we who are high end users are worrying about privacy, broadband, Internet telephony, electronic payment systems and faster access, most of the world has yet to turn on the switch. Much of what you have already discussed involves both the causes and the solutions to over coming the digital divide. The debate over privacy is an example: Privacy is a cultural thing. Major nations of the world have no cultural history about the privacy of the individual. In Europe the fear of invasion of privacy is directed toward private companies that gather information during the course of a voluntary business relationship between customer and vendor. In the United States the fear is directed toward governments collecting too much information about citizens. It is odd because the history of Europe is replete with violations of privacy by governments. Yet the data privacy directive is aimed at private corporations. But how do we communicate the value of privacy into cultures that have no history with it? And how do we let them know that the technology itself can provide them privacy? What are your definitions of the digital divide? What are the causes? Let's hear from you all, thanks. | |
| From: Dr. Marja Erola
(2) After Jim's message | |
Jim, so nice to have you as a moderator, your long experience and fresh visions on these GIS issues give clear added value to our discussion.(1) Jim JohnsonI fully believe in liberalization and full competition. Finland is an excellent example that it really works. A sparsely populated country with long distances and tough climate conditions - and excellent telecom infra and access with appr.the lowest telephony and Internet prices among the OECD countries, thanks to wise regulation and the long and unique history with tens of private telcos. (1) Jim JohnsonJim, you are right, privacy is a cultural thing. Here is Scandinavia privacy and freedom of speech etc are highly appreciated, they are among the very basic values of the society. At the same time we have perhaps the most covering digital registers of citizens within the government, with our social security nros included so that it's easy to combine these all. And the general trust exists that the governments won't misuse this information and that this system is very useful for everyone, governments, citizens, business sector. What comes to business activities in Europe the different parties - governments, politicians, business people, citizens, customers whatever groupings there are - are quite unanimous about the importance of privacy and also what it means in practice. The mission of my organization is the competitiveness of the Finnish industry, by means of financing and coordinating technological R&D. This of course means quite close dialogue with our business people: their general understanding and user-centric visions in these issues are really worth of high respect. Makes me trust they are doing right things. They could anyway express it still clearer at the strategic level and also practically at homepages, not thinking as guaranteed that everyone knows that no misuse. Especially as this practice is not any global habit as Jim wisely pointed out. I guess in the future these attitudes and practices in security and privacy will be a clear asset in business for European enterprises, especially when they are supported by the regulatory development. Here in Finland to solve these problems is actually quite easy as we have several world-class security technology enterprises (crypto, virus, firewall...) like F-Secure (previous Datafellows) http://www.f-secure.com, SSH Communications Security Ltd http://www.ssh.fi and Stonesoft http://www.stonesoft.com These security markets are growing as you know: e.g. F-Secure had its initial public offering (IPO) last autumn. Now the president and CEO of the company, Mr Risto Siilasmaa is the second richest man in Finland. - The first richest man is the main owner of our biggest media house http://www.sanomat.fi. The biggest company in Finland you all know I guess. :) Hmm, who knows perhaps this ranking combination tells something about the IS future in general? (1) Jim JohnsonThis is really a big question. And when these things are also cultural things we cannot just give our own values on a tray and expect others to adapt them as such. Cultural diversity is anyway richness and surely worth of full respect as well. (1) Jim JohnsonI checked from http://www.whatis.com their definition. Here it is: The term 'digital divide' describes the fact that the world can be divided into people who do and people who don't have access to - and the capability to use - modern information technology, such as the telephone, television, or the Internet. The digital divide exists between those in cities and those in rural areas. For example, a 1999 study showed that 86% of Internet delivery was to the 20 largest cities. The digital divide also exists between the educated and the uneducated, between economic classes, and, globally, between the more and less industrially developed nations. Selected Links The U.S. Commerce Department offers a study, Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Jesse Berst, Editorial Director of ZDNet, writes about Why the Digital Divide is Your Problem, Too. The Benton Foundation and America Online have announced an information clearinghouse. In the EU terminology Digital Divide doesn't seem to be so common. It's more about have's and have not's, cohesion and inclusion etc. A practical initiative which should be mentioned, related to these issues, is eEurope Initiative which was announced last December, 1999, in Helsinki: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/eeurope/home.htm. The main aim of the initiative is to bring the benefits of the Information Society within reach of all Europeans. The key objectives of the eEurope Initiative are: ringing every citizen, home and school, every business and administration, online and into the digital age. reating a digitally literate Europe, supported by an entrepreneurial culture ready to finance and develop new ideas. nsuring that the whole process is socially inclusive, builds consumer trust and strengthens social cohesion. | |
| From: Wolfgang Hennes
(3) temporary theme AND NIKKEI THEME | |
| Jim, it is difficult to send remarks on your thoughts. On the one hand there is the "digital economy" which changes the whole world economy and on the other hand the digital divide. Are we just within the evolution/battle everybody was talking about in the last years? The digital divide can be seen everywhere. The more I think about it the more I become uncertain.
In Germany we are planning an unconventional thing to find a way out of the digital divide national: "Internet fur alle" (Internet for Everybody) is an initiative from the German government. The problem was that there were not enough money to initiate that EVERBODY has the chance to get the Internet Access. So the German information industry is now trying to throw money together to make that vision real. A conversion of public needs and economical interests (of course the industry has an interest that the Internet is in every household). Why not? This could be a global possibility. Combine global social and economical needs and both will be satisfied. Too idealistic? | |
| From: Anthony M. Rutkowski
(4) Market Orientation | |
(3) Wolfgang HennesWith the rapid emergence of home portals and networks, this is becoming a reality very quickly. Personally, I have a fractional T1 DSL connection, Class C block of addresses, a dozen domains and several dozen services run on a number of machines scattered around the house on a 100 baseT LAN. Some sites are run by my teenage kids. I'm waiting for the consumer and electrical devices with the IP addresses that can talk ethernet or some wireless protocol. The "throw money together" aspect, however, raises a real danger with these "digital divide" or "Internet for Everyone" campaigns. The Internet happened as a large-scale phenomenon predominantly because it allowed for collective autonomous investments of intellectual and monetary resources. The Internet by definition is merely an entirely private means to allow autonomous, distributed resource sharing among a large number of machines, applications, and people. The paradigm is highly compelling to individual initiative, and "bottom up." This stands in stark distinction to older telecom and national or regional initiatives driven by notions of universal service doled out and managed by the State or monopoly franchisees. Whatever one thinks about these old regimes, they are entirely inappropriate today. The Digital Divide and Internet for Everyone dialogue sometimes seems to slip into TopDown Mode with the notion that if you throw lots of money at it, something will happen. What actually happens, however, is usually the wrong thing. Like it or not, the widespread availability of capital intensive goods and services (which very much includes the Internet), is facilitated best through a robust, competitive, open marketplace that allows individuals to intensively invest in and use. Put another way, the model for Internet success is that of consumer products, not the telephone system. We don't talk about the "television divide" or "VCRs for everyone" do we? That's because the medium is a self-initiating marketplace success. Perhaps we need a new slogan (with apologies to McLuhan) THE INTERNET IS THE OPEN MARKETPLACE!
| |
| From: Dr. Marja Erola
(5) Market Orientation | |
| I also trust quite a lot on market forces, even in infra and access questions. The role of the government is to provide good and well-functioning regulatory and legal, educational etc etc framework. For regulations and laws especially this means it should be clear, consistent, predictable, minimalistic (enough but not too much). Governments and other relevant parties can and should catalyze co-operation: political awareness and acceptance, actions plans together with some "seed" money and co-operation projects can surely be quite helpful. There is always the bundle of questions like "What does it cost and who will pay. Is it useful for us. What are its short-term and long-term impacts? Finland is said to be the most wired country in the world and we could call it also the most mobile or wireless country in the world. (Also we are said to be the most American as well on the other hand the most Japanese country in Europe. Anyway this wired and wireless situation is quite a lot based on our unique teleoperator system with a lot of private teleoperators and competition. We are not so terribly interested in universal access or that kind of things, and also free ISP is obviously not the best business model here, thanks to low interconnection pricing (based on our free telecom pricing). | |
| From: Anthony M. Rutkowski
(6) markets | |
(5) Dr. Marja ErolaWell said. The problem is practice is that these generic objectives afford a very broad range of implementation that range from truly minimalist to the very intrusive. One of the more profound paradigm changes represented in the Internet is the ability to self-organize and reach very large constituencies almost instantly with few barriers. This was facilitated in the US, for example, by a completely unfettered use of Internet domain names that allowed them to be used as branding "hooks" to jumpstart e-businesses. Compare that, for example, to the bureaucratic and structured mindset typically propagated elsewhere. The Internet not only facilities a vibrant e-economy; it also substantially diminishes the coordinating roles traditionally played by legacy institutions. Once this occurs, the seed money for any kind of reasonable business plan becomes readily available - as Silicon Valley and our local Virginia NetPlex can attest to. One of the great challenges for Europe and other regions is to employ the Internet to make the jump away from reliance on legacy institutional solutions, and into e-space where entrepreneurs (including those operating for altruistic purposes) just "do it." Finland seems well on its way, and the phenomenon is worth consideration and emulation. | |
| From: Nobuo Ikeda
(7) Digital Divide | |
(4) Anthony M. RutkowskiBut the Department of Commerce and Al Gore are talking much about the Digital Divide. I guess this is a fake problem to justify the democratic campaign for the Big Government. At ITU's Telecom 99 in Geneva, Mr. Annan of the UN said this is one of the most serious challenge for ITU. But audience accepted it as job-seeking of an organization whose role is taken over by IETF and W3C. | |
| From: Anthony M. Rutkowski
(8) Digital Divide | |
(7) Nobuo IkedaI don't believe its a fake problem, but rather a reiteration of a generic problem that that has always existed - namely the lack of communications resources and skills by those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Of course, it pertains to just about everything - going far beyond just communications - and includes health care, living conditions, and everything else with an economic nexus. The question is - what do you do about these things? And, the answer inevitably is: 1) to make these resources more affordable through competitive market-oriented systems, 2) to provide some "lifeline" capabilities in schools, libraries, and similar public facilities, and 3) to nurture individual entrepreneurial skills and a growing economy that benefits everyone. The Internet paradigm itself arguably facilitates all of these solutions. | |
| From: Bruno Lanvin
(9) Digital Divide | |
If we want to address a fake problem, let us talk Y2K, not Digital Divide. The question is not whether it is real or not, whether it needs addressing or not, but 'where will it run ?'. Within countries? among countries? between generations ?
(8) Anthony M. RutkowskiThe point is fundamentally correct. I believe however that it also applies to many private organizations and businesses. All (government, enterprises, UN organizations) have to undergo a truly cultural revolution to address the issues of the time (including that of the Digital Divide). A good way to start is to work closely with the field and less with headquarters' bureaucracies, more with business and less exclusively with governments. Kofi Annan has repeatedly pointed in these directions, including at Davos. Sure, inertia and apathy take their toll, but energy is gathering. Watch UNCTAD X in Bangkok, next week ... (and also www.unctad.org/ecommerce)
| |
| From: Izumi Aizu
(10) Digital Divide | |
| 'Digital Divide', I think it is a real issue, especially between already economically divided nations and peoples. Almost everyone now agrees that IT and Internet will drive the next growth of economy - wherever - say in Malaysia or India or Nepal or Tokyo. But who will get real benefits from there growth remains in question. Those who don't miss the opportunity, yes. Since the growth rate is almost exponential, until it reaches to 80%, perhaps, those who are left out means the gap is widening exponentially, too. My concern is that this widening gap could cause social protests, tensions and very difficult to offset. Education takes time, providing good infrastructure takes money, changing top-down government/private/int'l institutions costs both. I don't have the answers yet. We should collectively find them. And I agree with Bruno that working closer to the field is much more productive than HQs. And in many Asian developing countries and economies, governments still need to be taken care, educated, for digital divide to be narrowed, since they surely have more control of the society than US or Europe. I am not arguing that is good or bad, but we need to see the reality on order for the changes to happen.
| |
 | |