I really don't understand the purpose in your response. You talk about hospitals, social development, etc. I only discuss providing the foundation, the tool necessary before activities can commence. Secondly, I am far less keen to impose on different cultures a single or limited conception of social development. I would much rather provide a tool that allows each to participate and develop as they feel most suitable, and to later advance as appropriate to their context. I see this as a basic human right. I do not seek to forge cultures in my vision, and have no ulterior motive.
Telecenters are fine, simply representing least effective investment. They serve smaller populations, and on limited geographic and time availability. In fact, they don't even address the need for improved application platforms, providing services such as VoIP. I suggest that if they didn't employ computers, you'd receive NO funding for them whatsoever. I think there's another definition problem here. What is a social divide, if not the unequitable provision of opportunity? Telecenters, while helping a minority, institutionalize a divide only because the resources necessary to expend are no longer available to develop even one, equitable, low-cost network and applications platform. BTW, a low-cost universal network available round-the-clock would certainly come in handy for those bereft of access to medical assistance. Techno-structure? I think it a little unbalanced to blame the obvious inappropriate relationship between government and business and, being in a democracy, turn around and speak of social development. Are you not also responsible? I urge you seek cure for your own ills first. Tell the government there needs to be more than a half-dozen webs residing on the Internet, and one should be low-cost, universal and provide access to basic communication applications. The plain fact is that the money exists to end the digital divide, and has always existed. It is being spent less effectively, in a manner that will not resolve the digital divide, but develop a political constituency. Our civil watchdogs are being paid off. This is not a mystery but plainly evident for anyone who understands the technologies involved. Its great to talk of social development. It's important. But at this time it, like telecenters, tends to deflect the sad truth that we are not fulfilling our real responsibilities. Funding, like technology, is not the goal. Both rely on the methods in which they're deployed. I suggest we know this already. Alan Levy Mexico, D.F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] << Michel J. Menou wrote: >> My true goal is to achieve universal access to IP >> communications. It is possible, if sufficient >> political will is created. This requires voices, >> nothing more. > Fine but this is not the only fundamental issue in > development. > The digital divide solely exists due to a > surprising few reasons. > While Mr. Levy's presentation of the vicious logic of > telecom "markets" is quite appropriate, the digital > divide is of limited concern if not considered as part > of the overall social divide. It does not matter much > to be able to call emergency assistance if one cannot > pay for the treatment in the hospital and have to. <snip> >> [More ominously, one might conclude government does >> understand this, and is willing to sacrifice >> generations to gain tighter control over >> communications, and a subsequent power to >> participate in determining who in the future will >> own the small number of large content producers. >> This creates franchises (ie. Disney) and also >> generates taxes from worldwide sources.] > This, and all the demonstration that preceded is > certainly part of the picture. But "government" should > be considered here a shorthand for "techno-structure" > so much governments and big business have incestuous > relations at this time. However, it is unlikely that > change could occur in any area, much less the telecom > one, as long as the overall premises and foundations > of social "order" will remain unchanged. <snip> >> Sadly, no one believes a minimum degree of access >> to communications, to basic information-exchange, >> should be considered a basic human right. Sadly, no >> one recognizes the cost for failing to share >> equitably such right. Sadly, no one has made proper >> use of their $5.00 calculator. > Well, Mr. Levy may feel lonely but there are plenty > of people and organizations who did and act about > these issues. Not least the "telecentres" which he > said in another message, if I got it correctly, are > not appropriate. They may not be from his perspective > of universal individual access to telecoms. But true > telecentres do not seek to provide acces to telecoms, > they seek to support social transformation efforts by > the communities themselves, using telecom facilities > whenever they can be of help. >> ------------ ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.globalknowledge.org>
