Well, Perry, I agree to a point and have covered this in a less techie more socio-political email sent previously. Herein is my argument to provide an equitable platform for participation, along with a defined group of basic communications applications.
Everything is determined by the network, which is why I call for more networks, and the need to specifically apply applications to the minimal requisite network technology... to avoid cross-subsidization, achieve true application cost, maintain market pressure in pricing and innovation on information providers, and create affordable access to basic ICT participation. To do otherwise solely serves big business and big government in ways that will in time become clear are simply downright evil... forms of interactivity and data collection you are not going to like, and that cause loss of freedoms, individuality and identity. However, in understanding ICT, I project it'll take another ten years for most to become sufficiently conscious of this... by which time even a high legislative agenda won't be able even if desired... and it won't be... to disassemble monolithic sole-provider networks. The accompanying content and financial infrastructures will already be too entrenched. This really shouldn't be a mystery for those highly educated. There are similarities to be found throughout history. I suggest that technology either clouds peoples thought processes, or provides a false belief that advances will continue to cure any dysfunction. Again, history abounds with examples explaining it just ain't so. As noted in another email I sent, a network is ubiquitous in nature, making a connection only an ID. As explained in my book, a low-cost access device required to work both with user and access device authentication and verification (an ID for both) eliminates potential for theft when borrowed. And a medium bandwidth network provides a very low cost applications platform. The Ma Bell history we're repeating is going to end with a far different outcome this time around. What's worse than a dearth of information? Alan Levy Mexico, D.F. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perry Morrison wrote: > The Simputer is indeed a remarkable piece of technology. I soundly > applaud the designers and backers and all the others who have tackled > the array of hurdles (not just technical) involved. > > My only caution is to be aware of the history of almost every truly > innovative technology- namely that those in advantaged positions are > inevitably early adopters and reap benefits which can sometimes worsen > the position of the less advantaged. The green revolution in some places > allowed early adopters (wealthier) farmers to adopt hybrid crops and > their essential fertilisers and the consequent windfall yields allowed > them to crush and buy out smaller, uncompetitive farmers. ------------ ***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>
