Re: [GKD] RFI: Who is Linking DE with BOP Strategies?
On 8/11/05, Jim Stodder wrote: Point (1): There would be large pedagogical advantages, even in the 1st world, to having MUCH greater use of sophisticated DE. However -- and this is key to my argument -- the institutional constraint of Academic Tenure, at both the Primary-Secondary and University levels, make truly widespread adoption impossible for many decades. ... snip Point (2): Furthermore, the supply availability and cost advantages at the BOP make DE even more overwhelming. DE would be the ONLY way to feasibly deliver widespread teaching at the BOP. Developing such a DE program could also actually empower and leverage the resources of teaching profession in many languages and cultures at the BOP. Well, just today we had the second meeting of our national committee for support of the use of technology in education where we discussed how to avoid the collapse of 128 computer-labs installed in public primary and secondary education. Here are the hard facts: (a) Nicaragua spends $54 per student a year in primary and $58 in secondary education. (b) This amounts to $0.27 and $0.29 per school day (assuming 200 days per year). (c) Teachers are being paid between $0.52 and $0.58 per class-hour with group-sizes between 35 to 60 students. (d) A single hour of a single computer takes at least $0.38 let alone in electricity, without Internet access. (e) With Internet costs this rises to $0.52 -assuming 12 hours of daily use and fixed cost per month of Internet access- I would be seriously interested in any DE-technology that does it for less and at the same time is more effective than a real teacher in a real class-room. Yours, Cornelio PS: I've got somewhere UNDP and UNESCO statistics on teachers salaries, which show the Nicaraguan case with regard to spending in education and teacher salaries is by no means an exception. ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] The $100 Laptop
Dear Colleagues, I'm a little bit puzzled: if the cost of the components by themselves and isolated add up to $90 - assuming low costs due to the scale of the operation - they will be assembled into a laptop which is then preloaded, tested, packed, stored and shipped all for $0? (this is necessary to maintain a profit of $10) Because if not, the target of a $100 per unit as sold / delivered to Education-Ministries can not be met, even assuming breakthroughs in display technology and the claimed component prices. Perhaps I missed something essential in the project layout? Yours, Cornelio On Monday, April 11, 2005, Ken DiPietro wrote: Daily Wireless has an excellent article on the $100 laptop among several other related subjects. I did a fast check with a few suppliers and I am reliably told that the prices quoted in this article for the individual parts can be easily attained based on the volume that is projected. The article can be found here: http://dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=Newsfile=articlesid=3903 ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
[GKD] Should Developed Countries Subsidize the Internet for LDCs?
Dear Colleagues, As it was tacitly touched upon in our recent focused discussion and is a hot topic for WSIS-2005, I would be interested in other opinions. To state it: in many cases they should not!...and not for the sake of avoiding spending but rather to avoid harming the Developing Countries. Why? Investing in and operating ICT-infrastructure takes money. This money may be spent in 3 different ways: (a) Paying for equipment (or reducing it's price) to be donated (b) Subsidizing material Operation-costs (like communication lines, energy etc.) (c) Paying local personnel totally or partially Let's see now position by position: (a) Actually the money goes to vendors of equipment, not to beneficiaries (i.e. it gives access to a market where otherwise there would be no access). Moreover -due to the high operation-costs- in many cases recipients of these donations find themselves either obliged to spend where otherwise they would not have spent a cent or simply not use the donated equipment. (b) Specifically if we talk about subsidizing communication costs, the money again goes to the big players not the beneficiaries. Again it opens a market that otherwise would not be accessible. Additionally in many, many countries local communication costs are artificially inflated by a monopoly situation or by the fact that local Telco's have to feed so many interested parties -from corrupt executives to corrupt politicians- that the TELCO-business is closer to Mafia-racketeering than to an honest business. Foreign money would allow them to perpetuate this situation. (c) Even though theoretically possible, this one is the least common option I've seen...and comes with the risk that the hired personnel looks after the interests of their employers rather than the needs of those whom they supposedly serve. There are arguments that without subsidies many poor could not afford ICT-services or would not use them as being too expensive compared with other options. Well, these seem to me similar to the arguments that by subsidizing agro-exports below production-costs (Milk, Grains, Rice, Sugar, etc.) the big ones -USA, European Union, others- help the poor to get fed...yet we all know that in practice this dumping destroys local economies and does not help develop them. Corollary: Unless it can be shown beforehand that by using ICT-services people are truly better off or that a specific development-objective cannot be obtained by other more efficient (without subsidies!) and effective means, subsidies have a tendency to deepen and not to correct distortions. Yours sincerely, Cornelio ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
[GKD-DOTCOM] What Do We Mean By Poor?
Dear Colleagues, I suspect that we operate under two quite different concepts of poor, which in turn gives rise to more confusion. Under the first concept -as for instance used by UNDP for the Human Development Index- poor or not so poor is -to put it briefly- measured in terms of liberty - understood as real choices to conduct their own life -and freedom- understood as being free from most basic threats like risks to life or health, hunger, fear of oppression. (Thanks to FDR, who first coined these shorthand definitions). Under the second concept -as used by pure economists- poor or not so poor is measured in income, consumption, or productive capacities. Both concepts are somewhat related, but not in a straight forward manner: i.e. Bill Gates has apparently more liberties and freedoms than -say- the woman in the Philippines that puts the latest version of Windows XP into their boxes. Likewise there are backward-constraints: some services that imply more liberty -like education- or more freedom -like health services- need resources (i.e. they are not for free and hence the question arises what to do if those who need those services don't have nor can they contribute collectively the resources that are needed to provide those services). It isn't an extremely serious problem in countries or societies, where those without are a smaller fraction of the whole population. Here it can be solved by insurance and taxes (it's a classical political problem). However it becomes an extremely serious problem without easy solutions in those countries -the overwhelming majority- where those without count for 50% to 80% of the population. And in these cases it cannot be solved either by insurance or by taxes, simply because there aren't enough resources available that might be partially re-distributed. Having said all this, let me clarify my position: (1) There is no doubt that ICT can -and many times does- make the poor less poor in the sense of the first concept. (2) Yet even in these conditions a careful analysis beforehand is needed, to see whether the same effect could not be obtained by using a lesser amount of resources, without going over to ICTs. I found out that sometimes ICT is indeed the most cost-effective solution, whereas in other situations it's an outright waste of resources. (3) However if we are talking about a win-win situation between corporations and the poor (persons, families, sectors, countries, regions) then it would be deeply unfair for the poor to measure on one side of win in terms of Dollars and Cents and on the other side of win, in terms of liberty and freedom, because this implies that we condemn the poor to remain forever poor in the second sense, which -due to the backward-constraints mentioned above- implies that they will depend forever on charity or lack basic liberties and basic freedoms (on any level: persons, families, sectors, countries, regions). Yours truly, Cornelio This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Win-Win Business Models
Dear Al, (1) It's simply and plainly wrong that what sells, serves - sometimes it serves, sometimes it doesn't. (2) It's again a gross misperception that earnings even of hundreds of thousands of new middlemen in ICT-service-distribution-chains eradicate poverty. (3) If it were true, then your proclaimed benefit of ICT -- that is, eliminating existing (!) middlemen in existing distribution channels -- and eliminating supply-chains for other goods by using ICT, the examples you present as success stories -- would likewise increase poverty. (Actually there are examples where -- looking at a whole country, a region or a complete locality -- the country, region or locality became poorer by eliminating middlemen. Only the new endpoints of the chain -- large corporations, individual producers/consumers -- had some gain, where normally the largest gain was for the biggest players in the game). (4) Please name a single example listed at www.digitaldividends.org that shows using comparative data (either before/after or group-in-question/control-group) that the poor end-users of ICT-services were made less poor by using ICT. (I definitely do not accept indirect arguments like It's bought by them...and because the poor would not buy it unless it serves... hence it makes them less poor. The poor buy also Aspirin, Milk powder, Coca-Cola, Brandy up to -- to make a point -- crack...but none of these products makes them less poor). (5) The most frequent examples -- sales and purchase-prices -- are misleading, as their impact is based not on informing individuals but on informing the public, therefore producing synchronized actions. (As done by the Stock and Commodity-markets and the respective Stock-tickers for about 140 years --long before ICTs -- only fractions of stocks and commodities are really traded at those markets, yet they define publicly acceptable prices because they are public). (6) Yet even though already about 80% of the Nicaraguan coffee-producers do know the indicators of NY-commodity-futures on coffee, it doesn't help them significantly. Actual prices paid are determined by about 8 or 9 large-scale-middlemen that trade about 80% of the world's coffee beans. On the other hand, the volume they may offer is insignificant compared to market-dimensions, even if all coffee producers of Nicaragua would agree to sell only jointly. The supposed counter-examples of specialty-coffee which obtains higher prices in public auctions is economically irrelevant -- as are the US$ 1,000 a bottle for an exquisite French wine compared with thousands of hectoliters of French wine production, which sell for US$ 5 a bottle. (7) May I stress: I'm definitely in favor of large companies discovering the poor as possible markets, yet please don't propagate it using misleading arguments or misnomers. It's a business like any other business: not any less nor more humanitarian than any other. (8) I still have some hope that in some moment in time they also will re-discover an old discovery made by Henry Ford: the key is not only to produce a Model-T car at low cost but to increase the worker's salaries up to the point where they themselves could afford to buy one. Hopefully the Chinese workers producing Cellular Phones, Computers and Cars and other appliances will have in the near future an income sufficient to allow them to buy one. Yours truly, Cornelio On Friday, November 12, 2004, Al Hammond wrote: For Tom Abeles and others who have joined the conversation recently, I would like to point out that we have documented a number of what we believe can be win-win models, and even sustainable models, in connectivity, agriculture, finance, health care, and other sectors, in detailed case studies that can be found on www.digitaldividends.org or with links under the resources page of the conference website, http://povertyprofit.wri.org. We have also posted earlier in this discussion detailed market data characterizing the size of the low-income or bottom-of-the-pyramid markets in a number of developing countries. Many of the companies coming to the Eradicating Poverty Through Profits conference in San Francisco next month are seriously exploring how to serve such markets in ways that generate real local value, while also yielding a profit. This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Blurring Corporate and NGO Lines
Dear Al, On one side you are perfectly right: large corporations do have resources like technical expertise, logistics and capital, that could and should be leveraged to fight poverty (yet be aware of Halliburton's performance in Iraq or the Water-companies in Bolivia). Yet I'm afraid that your definition of NGOs only comprises that type of organization you yourself are involved with: Northern, mostly philanthropic associations, that make their living from donor money and sponsoring/executing smaller or larger, but never large-scale-projects. The term NGO within developing countries extends far beyond this limited vision, as here NGOs are all types of social organizations of the beneficiaries themselves, when they are not established as commercial or public entities. This means a teachers-organization is an NGO -and most of their programs go way beyond classical trade-unions- as they are student-associations, small farmers associations, women's-associations, health-associations and so on. Many of them are confined to a single location, others have found ways of coordination and collaboration on a larger scale, up to whole countries or even beyond. This framework -almost a natural one and not something crafted- joins more expertise on Development-issues, success and failures and the reasons why, then the whole bunch of experts of large multilateral organizations like Worldbank, UNESCO, UNDP, FAO and (!) the big corporations jointly. For a strikingly simple reason: it's their life that's at stake not only success-reports or quarterly earnings. To get again into numbers: let's assume that you need one person-day to train 25 persons in how to use the Internet (or more generally, some ICT-application) for their benefit. This converts into 160,000 person-days to train 4 million farmers or the equivalent of 667 man-years. (Already almost out of scope to be done by highly-skilled and highly-paid professionals of the corporate world: it wouldn't make sense economically with respect to ROI). If we scale it up to let's say 200 Million farmer-families, we would need about 34 thousand person-years to do the job - completely beyond capacity of even the largest corporate entity. And we didn't even take into account that there at least about 50 or 60 local idioms to be considered, hundreds of different cultural traditions and thousands and thousands of different local social settings, in which each needs a sometimes larger sometimes smaller adjustment of training-materials, strategies and settings. So without close-support of local NGOs the task cannot and hence will not be done. Corollary: the true challenge is not getting the corporate-world involved but to get thousands of local NGOs involved as counterparts. The former is almost simple -convince the CEO and the Board of Directors, maybe some important shareholders. The second is the truly hard task, but unavoidable if you would like to succeed on scale. Yours, Cornelio P.S. For some reason MIT-media-lab left India, ATT Bellsouth sold out completely their ICT-business in Latin-American (i.e., even the best of the corporate-world sometimes doesn't match with local conditions and traditions). This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Is Profitability Essential for Sustainability?
Initial remarks: the Moderator's question does not contain a definition of profit; it might be a monetary return on invested capital, it might be an excess over pure operation-costs, it might be equal to the operation costs but those who use the offered ICT-services do better by using those services. Second remark: we made a large comparative study on Telecenters in Nicaragua and do continous monitoring and -except in very special settings like schools- we didn't observe any significant difference in services offered, prices charged and people attending, between supposedly for profit and supposedly non-profit Telecenters. Third remarks: (1) Unfortunately ICT-services are not free -like air- someone has to provide them and someone has to pay those who provide them. (2) Costs to be covered are the use of communication-infrastructure, the personel involved in bringing the service, the replacement of equipment and consumables, the place (or the rent for it), the energy used. (3) It turns out that 1 years full operation-costs (including depreciation for equipment replacement) in many cases comes already close to the initial investment-costs or even exceeds them. (4) The current trend -look at Cellular phones and their business model or Ink-jet printers- for communication-technology makes that initial investment become more and more irrelevant compared to operation-costs. (5) Hence the whole question boils down to who pays and how (and to a certain degree why) and specifically the operation-costs. Fourth remark: if -as in some cases- philanthropic initial donors also cover the operation-costs -mostly they don't- still the question is whether donors should be encouraged to spend on ICT or is the money better spent on other more important issues. If it is claimed that Governments -either donors or local- should cover these costs, the question becomes even more important. The only reason might be that ICT is more effective than other means to fight poverty (or it's a basic requirement to achieve those other means). Generalized hard evidence is missing. Fifth remark: if there is no substantial gain for beneficiaries -i.e. they are truly better off with ICT than without or ICT provides essential services at lower costs -then there is no reason to spend on ICT- neither for them nor for anyone else. This depends on a case by case analysis -and unfortunately this analysis in many, many instances is not done, neither before nor after. Sixth remark: A telecenter -or whatever other type of ICT-service- without a sound business-model with respect to the above ... shouldn't even be started. Seventh remark: We found -and there are other examples in the literature- that non-benefactor Telecenters (i.e. those either started for profit or by the beneficiaries themselves) had in general more sound business-models than those mounted for benefit (i.e. by any type of Benefactors, public, private, NGOs). Corollary: self interest -some times expressed in terms of profit-expectations- is a necessary requirement for sustainability. Cornelio This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Can Technology and a Business Approach Make Globalization Work for the Poor?
Dear Colleagues, I think we should separate (and not mix) the question of what marketing and packaging strategies are needed to sell ICT-services to the poor in a profitable way from what ICT-services the poor might need (and how to provide them in sustainable, maybe even profitable way). The former has almost nothing to do with the latter, (i.e. a credit-shark or slum-landlord apparently sells something to the poor and mostly in an extremely profitable way -for him- yet he does not provide them with any service they need, which means credit not on cut-throat conditions or decent housing, or more generally something that makes them less poor.) Plainly speaking, selling a service does not mean to serve, though many marketing-strategies try to sell us on their equivalence. Second required separation: there are services -like micro-credit, exports or material-purchase for cooperatives- that may require ICT-usage to cut operations-costs. The paper-work for a 100 US$ credit is almost as extensive as for a 100,000,000 US$ Credit- such that the poor may receive a service at reasonable costs. In my context, micro-credit is more expensive than credit cards, yet ICT is not used by the poor themselves -or only to a limited extent- rather than by an organisation that provides the service for the poor. There are similar examples in education and health-care. Third observation: neither the first nor the second bares any relation with Globalization, they are just local questions, except that -maybe- a global entity acts as service-provider and not a local one. If the focus of this discussion aims to be Globalization (and not only global versus local service-provider), then the questions have to be (1) how are Globalization and ICT inter-related and (2) which specific usage of ICT within Globalization serves the poor, (i.e. makes them less poor), or on the opposite hand, which ICT-usage in the context of Globalization makes them poorer. Yours, Cornelio This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Cyber-Security, Policy and Cyber-Terrorism
Dear Sam, Though I agree with your intention, I disagree that there is commonly shared definition even of Cyber-crime. Why? Looking strictly at criminal-codes in different countries, there are Internet-based activities which are protected by the Constitution in one country, and are criminal offenses in others. And these striking differences exist even between countries which are commonly believed to share the same values. A tiny example: using the swastika (the Nazi-symbol) on a website is a criminal offense in Germany but protected by the First Amendment in the United States. Another more technical example: using any type of encryption in email, chat or the Web was at least - I don't know whether it still is - a criminal offense in France, but is a recommended practice in the US for doing business. Corollary: whenever content becomes important there is no common minimal standard of law (as there is no consensus about the limits of freedom of opinion and freedom of information). Suggestion: limit the discussion - beyond commercial relations, which was the previous topic - to subjects like hacking, cracking, sabotage and similar acts - all non-content related - where there appears to be a minimal consensus as to what constitutes a criminal offense and what doesn't. Yours truly, Cornelio On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, Sam Lanfranco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We all have a pretty good notion of what is meant by cyber-crime. We may disagree on the scope of the definition but we do have a common feel for its domain. I suspect that we all do not have a good, or common, notion of what is meant by cyber-terrorism. We do agree that what fits our definition is by its very nature bad, but that does not mean we agree as to what it is. We risk confusion if we combine cyber-terrorism with cyber-crime in the same analysis. I would suggest that the two streams of concerns be treated seperately, even though in some cases the same organizations and same tools are used to pursue the culprits. Terrorism may be a crime, but as generally understood cyber-crime tends toward economic crimes and/or the crimes of libel and slander. Cyber-terrorism is something else. ..snip... This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Cyber-Security and E-commerce
Dear Mr. Sharkovski, I do understand perfectly your frustration, yet don't share your opinion - or perception - that there are just some powerful anonymous groups out there, which intentionally try to harm Macedonia by putting it on a black list. Why should they? (And by the way, this IMHO applies to almost any developing country, therefore Macedonia may serve just as an example). Under current conditions, there are just 2 recognized public entities that - on the state level - may give you credentials: (a) the US-government (Departments of State and Commerce in their country-profiles and related info, see for instance http://www.mac.doc.gov/ceebic/countryr/Fyrm/MARKET/Macedonia%27s%20Informa ti on%20Technology%20Sector.pdf which in fact makes quite critical observations with respect to laws and ICT in Macedonia). (b) the EU-commission (Commissioner for commerce) in Brussels. Even though not publicly admitted, both are obviously say modulated by general political interest, yet they don't operate anonymously. And there are the private risk-assessment agencies like Standard Poors or the respective risk-assessment departments of banks and [public] trade- or export-risk assurance companies. Hence the only way out - in your situation and similar situations in other countries - is to engage at least one of these public entities and at least one of the private ones in a more formal assessment of your conditions and then distribute their assessment (like percentage of risk-penalties in trade-assurance contracts etc.). Unfair? Yes! Avoidable? Definitively no! Yours sincerely, Cornelio On Friday, October 1, 2004, L Sharkovski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think perhaps some on the GKD list have missed the problem that my compatriot in Macedonia is describing. The point, for us at least, is not that there is rampant cyber-criminality in Macedonia that the government has failed to prevent. The point is that it is just as safe to buy from Macedonia, or sell to Macedonians online, as it is from any other country. Yet the organization Exportbureau.com has alleged that there are online fraud schemes based in Macedonia and has placed Macedonia on their list of Suspect Shipping or Contact Addresses. There is no contact address or information listed on THEIR website, so it is extremely difficult to determine who this group is and where they reside (although, after some research, we believe they reside in Taiwan). ..snip... It is bitterly ironic that Macedonia -- a very small country with relatively low cyber-density compared with the industrialized countries in Western Europe and the US -- is accused of being major sources of cyber-fraud. In a world of cyber-criminality, what percentage of that is Macedonian? I will tell you: Zero. Yet our companies are shut off from access to major e-commerce channels. So it is not an issue of lack of laws or lack of enforcement. It is an issue of too much power in the hands of groups that seem to be informal arbiters of which countries are secure enough for e-commerce. Furthermore, they are completely inaccessible and unaccountable. They do not reply to our requests for evidence of their accusation. And there is no way for us to counter their accusation other than trying to publicize our security through discussions like this one. It is difficult for us to convey how frustrating and damaging this situation is for us. In many ways, this type of baseless accusation, which harms our economy, is just as lawless as the accusation they are making. ..snip... This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
[GKD] RFI: Low Cost / Low Energy Printing Devices
Dear GKD Members, I'm setting up the initial balance sheets and specs for a National Crusade by which we pretend to equip each and every of the 6700 public school in the country with a low-scale internet access (2 computers per school, sufficient bandwidth for email and slow downloading of mid-size archives, mostly for teachers use). Here comes my question: What are the best printing options available (Low energy, as in many place we will have to use Photo-voltaic, low operation costs)? Any experiences with recycled Matrix-printers or similar devices? Thanks Cornelio eNicaragua/niDG ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] Knowledge Bank Evaluation Criticizes Dev. Gateway
Dear GKD Members, I would think it's extremely useful to precisely define that about which we are going to exchange opinions. To clarify some citations: Since FY97, the Bank has spent some US$220 million for corporate, network, and Regional knowledge-sharing activities and more than US$60 million for its three main global knowledge initiatives, the Development Gateway, the Global Development Learning Network (GDLN), and the Global Development Network (GDN). (p XIII, Executive Resume, Sharing Knowledge, OED evaluation) The Bank has provided a total of US$15.5 million for the start-up of the Development Gateway, of which US$7 million was spent before its transfer to the Development Gateway Foundation in 2001. Following that transfer, the Bank, as a member of the board of the foundation, agreed to provide an additional US$5 million over the next three years through its Development Grants Facility. Also, in FY01-FY02, the Bank provided some US$3.5 million in grants through infoDev for the Country Gateway program (ibid, P 26). The first point to clarify is hence whether the topic is Knowledge Management by the WB or the Development Gateway project, which represents a tiny fraction of money spent (and efforts involved). (By the way 220 M in 7 years converts into about 32 M per year. A ridiculous amount if compared with the scale of WB operations. I dare to suspect that they spend more in travel-expenses yearly than in Knowledge-Management, but that would be a complete different discussion). I do have my observations with respect to Information-Management by WB and may subsume these into a simple statement: Please do apply to yourself what you ask others, namely governments, to comply: transparency and accountability, which -as a relevant WB paper states- includes personal(!) responsibility for decisions and their consequences, and requires full access to all relevant documentation. However: the Development Gateway project is not (!) related with these issues of project-auditing. Hence it's incorrect -and by the way therefore unfair- to pick the DG if you intend to criticize WB Knowledge-Management. Now let's have a closer look on details: DG contains currently four components: Knowledge/Topics, DgMarketplace, AiDA, and Country Gateway. Again 2 citations: The Development Gateways current activities are financed by the Development Gateway Foundation through funds provided by the Foundations founding partners.21 Annual costs total approximately US$6M, including management, administration, technology and services. While funds are provided by the Development Gateway Foundation, the World Bank provides all staff and services related to the operation of the Development Gateway through a services agreement. The services agreement for fiscal year 2002 reflected the full costs of operating the Development Gateway, totaling $6M. The Country Gateway program team is funded as part of this $6M, but Country Gateways themselves access funding from a grant program, infoDev, and from the Gateway Foundation directly (this is discussed in more detail in the sections on the Country Gateways and Governance). (p 16, Startup of the Development Gateway, OED evaluation). Allocations to the dgMarket and AiDA are expected to remain relatively constant, while the budget for Knowledge/Topics has been expanded to accommodate an increasing number of development topics and focus pages.23 The budget for the Country Gateway Coordination Team is projected to increase, reflecting the anticipated addition of 10-20 Country Gateways over the next fiscal year. There is currently no budget for the addition of new services. The Knowledge/Topics service continues to be the largest cost center for the Development Gateway. It is also the service most challenged to define its utility relative to its beneficiaries and differentiate itself from comparator services. (ibid, p17) Both OED and Breton Woods project agree (!!) that DgMarketplace and AiDA are useful activities, that may correspond to something like a BM supported portal. And both (!!) agree that the other components are critical or worthy for discussion of their cost of opportunity. It's precisely at this point, where I start to wonder about honesty or motives of those progressives who raise critiques. Why? Who ever had a closer look to the content of the content pages of DG should have noted that about 80% of the content is not (!!) WB-knowledge or knowledge produced by WB affiliates. Why then that micro-tiny fraction of the whole effort of WB Knowledge-Management, that contains the least WB-knowledge, draws the major part of attention? And why is it attacked on false grounds? It claims also my attention that the emerging network of 58 locally owned Country-gateways -by the way the Latin America Network of ccDG is operating already as a true horizontal network among 18 nodes and the people involved see http://www.developmentgateway.org/lac - is not worthwhile to be stressed or
Re: [GKD] RFI: Impact of ICT on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Dear Michael, I am well aware of the claimed global impact of ICT on overall capital-productivity, i.e. that improved supply- and distribution chain-management reduced the amount of capital bound to goods in store, that improved decision making reduced time-to-market, that standardizing procedures in all types of financial services improved the ratio of employees per client etc. In general that ICT reduced, sometimes dramatically, turn-around-time of invested capital with likewise dramatic increases in profits. But I'm also aware of hundreds if not thousands of dot-com business-models that simply burned billions of dollars, and that looking backwards had no sound economic base right from the very beginning. In Development Policies ICT MISME (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises) combine two trendy models: the MISME as driving engine for economic development and ICT as enabling if not empowering technology. MISME as development-engine parted from the statistically correct observation that in many, many developing countries 40% and more of employment is provided by micro- and small-businesses with between 3 and 15 employees. More over, that MISME acted as an absorbing buffer when due to the impact of structural adjustment policies hundreds of thousands of persons lost their jobs in public administration, formerly public owned utilities or closed industrial plants. Not to talk about MISME as a segment fed by rural-to-city migration. Balancing money invested against jobs created, agencies found out that 1000 US$ channeled to micro- and small enterprises created -at least apparently- more jobs than the same 1000 US$ channeled to industrial or big infrastructure projects. With falling prices for equipment -not to talk about re-cycled equipment from developed countries- and improved communication-infrastructure, ICT starts to appear as a possible short-cut to leverage even more the very large informal sector in developing countries. Again there appear to be sub-trends: the first focuses on the role of the middle-man and claims that by improving information-flows small producers in remote areas may obtain fairer prices and small consumers in remote areas may pay fairer prices. It should be noted however that already as a model this trend does not tackle productivity but rather distribution-problems (who earns the greater share). The second trend claims that ICT improves dramatically access-to-market opportunities. Despite that arts crafts manufacturing represents only a tiny fraction of the whole informal sector, there are literally hundreds of projects that claim that they either already improved market-access dramatically or that they will improve it. So my question still is: is there any hard evidence that in a replicatable and scaleable way ICT for arts crafts has improved the economic situation and impact of this segment or, more generally, is there any hard evidence that ICT for arts crafts is the most efficient and effective way of using funds for global poverty-reduction. I like to note, that about 80% of projects I've seen concentrate on market-access, more precisely on improved marketing. Very, very few tackle the management as such of supply, production and distribution. As an example, I searched in vain for software packages to support cooperatives, i.e. that would ease bundled purchases of supplies and tools, manage the internal distribution of those supplies and tools, and improve recollection of produced goods for bundled sales or exports; where this would be precisely the counterpart to supply-, distribution- and production-management in developed countries. 99% of the offered solutions are for the individual usage by the individual micro- or small entrepeneur. In my humble opinion many will-be-a-big-success stories read as if they were dot-com-era business-models. If as economy you have excess-money to spend, burning some billions might not hurt much nor many unless those who saw their retirement-funds vanishing, if however your whole economy is on the brink -as in many developing countries- burning money easily may drive you over the edge. Yours Cornelio ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] The Role of the Private Sector
Let me preface my comments by some more general considerations: (a) No matter how wealthy he might be, a donor is only willing to finance operation costs -- or even a substantial fraction thereof -- for 1 or 2 years. (b) As accumulated cost for ongoing operations rapidly exceeds inital investments (due to breakdown or obsolence), most projects should consider operation cost and relacements right from the beginning (it's: only the first PC is for free, you have to pay already for the next one). (c) As a consequence of (b), many if not most projects collapse, once the original donor disappears. (d) To prevent (c) there is a new buzz-word: sustainability (e) However, the concept of sustainability holds a deep and fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between NGOs and for-profit companies. (f) In the North (or whatever synonym you like) a NGO gets funding mainly from donors, endowments, tax-reducibles, public money. (g) In the South (or whatever synonym you like) there are no rich donors nor a huge amount of persons interested in tax-deductions, and public money is urgently needed for 1,001 tasks -- ICT4D is just one among many. (h) Thus, sustainability in the South actually means: those who benefit, one way or the other, have to pay for the services they receive -- at least for the direct costs (e.g., for replacements, upgrades, expansion. Whoever is the provider has to charge for those costs - regardless of whether it's a so-called Small Business or a NGO). (i) Another way to look at it: most private small businesses are not really for profit, but rather are a way to for someone to generate self-employment income, i.e., the small business is not expecting to generate revenue for share-holders or interest for capital-investment. (j) This makes the Northern distinction between small business (for profit) and NGO (charity) -- found in many fund-applications of World Bank, Regional Development Banks and Big national Donor Organizations -- not only incorrect but counterproductive. (In the Southern context, aquiring sustainability means going into business and charging fees, just like any other business). (k) With respect to national public funds: assignment of extremely scare public funds to subsidize ICT4poor seems reasonable and ethical if and only if using ICT vs. other means will save money. Example: a Nicaraguan Teacher is paid roughly 0.58 US$ per class-lesson assuming class-frequencies of 35 and more. Operation of 1 single PC costs roughly the same per hour. Nicaragua has a recognized deficit of some 10,000 primary and secondary teachers in public education, mainly due to budget limits. Under these circumstances, spending 1 single US$ (or asking the parents to pay) to sustain a School-computer is not only a waste but anti-ethical. (l) Corolary from a-k: the usage of ICT in the South can only be sustained if it provides measurable economic benefit, either in form of services directly for end-users, or in the form of reduced costs (or extended coverage) compared with traditional approaches to providing the same or similar services. Having said this, here are my answers: KEY QUESTIONS: 1. What specific elements does a policy environment need in order to encourage the private sector to expand access to poor, isolated, underserved areas? Where do such policies exist? Drop the artificial distinction between for benefit NGOs and for profit micro and small enterprises. 2. What lessons have we learned about the risks and rewards of creating public-private partnerships to expand access to the underserved? Where have these lessons been applied, and where have they worked? Assume that, unless there is a clear benefit for the public sector, as explained above, public spending in PPP must and will tend to 0. Thus, the contibutions will be only for limited administrative costs, administrative and policy support. 3. What are specific, unexploited opportunities for public-private partnerships to expand access to the underserved? Please provide examples where these opportunities can be exploited effectively. Use smallest-scale bids for local would-be service providers, open to NGOs and small businesses. Treat both as part of the local micro/small/medium-enterprise environment, and provide support, etc., to both that are normally given to any of these types of enterprises. 4. What concrete lessons have we learned about stimulating/supporting local businesses to extend access to the underserved? Please be specific. Where have these lessons been applied effectively? If you don't do as expressed above, realize that the utmost probability is that your (donor) project will be history as soon as you stop throwing in money. (You have the odds of the experiences of thousands of Tele- and Info-centers against you). This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. To post a
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] How Much Bandwidth is Necessary?
I would like to throw in my 20 ounces of salt ... and support Pam McLean. Stories from my life: When changing the German National Research Center for Computing in 1985 for the Engineering University of Nicaragua I felt like I was transported to the moon - dark side. Whereas in Germany I had already access to uunet and email, a simple letter exchange from Nicaragua back to Germany required 3-6 weeks. Therefore I was extremely happy when I succeded in 1988 to connect by long distance phone calls (Nicaragua--Vermont) 3 times a day Nicaragua as Blue Internet Node (.ni) to UUNET...Suddenly affordable turn around time was 48 hours -instead of 3 weeks- and more over the usenet Newsgroups provided an excellent mechanism for getting help from technical communities and their volunteers. (all by phone-calls and compressed email transfer). In 1994 we went online as a country (!!) sharing with Costa Rica a 64K link (!) to the IX in Miami. Again a substantial change as from there on we had not to pay for connection time -as in the phone-times- but rather the limit of what is transferable was defined by mean time between failure ie. it was possible to send everything (or to get everything) if only the transmision-time did not exceed a couple of hours. We even had software to schedule up/down-loads to low-traffic hours during the night. (In that respect: there are hundreds of proven solutions still around from those times where Usenet was a Dial-Up connected Network, yet covering the whole globe with already hundreds of thousands of users and hundreds of nodes. Many of those are still shipped as unknown parts of FreeBSD or Linux with BSD compatible solutions, such that there is no need to re-invent the wheel. These include Batched Mail-transfer not the extremely resource intensive SMTP peer-to-peer email. Scheduled transfers, the whole usenet-news mechanism with decentralized multi-origin feeds yet locally made consistent etc. etc. etc.) Obviously today with a Cablemodem at my homeoffice -still in Nicaragua- and effective 8-9 KB/s it's nice to chat with my son using WEB-cam (He is on a 7 month visit to Germany). Likewise downloading 20 MB in minutes facilitates ... but it's only a gradual change compared with the jumps before. Concluding Remarks: If WiFi and other Broadband Technologies cut connection costs substantially, they may be extremely useful. However I suspect -except true Broadband online comunication- that in 99% of the cases a mix between distributing bulk information using DVD/RW as media and combining it with a low-bandwidth connection will solve the problem. (As an example: communication of medical information from remote places can be split into burning lots of Info onto an DVD/RW and have it shipped by what ever means are available combined with text-chat with the counseling central hospital once the DVD arrived there. Assume you get 3.6 GB of information this way in 12 hours to the hospital, it would need almost 9 hours to send the same content through a 1 Megabit/second direct connection). Likewise 99% of eLearning-materials can be shipped as DVD/RW -as it does not change day by day- and then locally combined with either character-email or character-chat. Hence: if the alternative is to connect many (and through-out the country) by low-bandwidth or a few with megabyte links, go for the first. The latter will come -almost by itself- as technology costs fall and demand increases. Yours Cornelio This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Bringing Connectivity to Under-Served Communities
Dear GKD Colleagues, Jean-Marie Blanchard wrote: Main barriers to Internet penetration are identified as: lack of Telecom infrastructure, limitation of population income, not adequate enough content and applications, lack of local expertise and population awarenessAlcatel is participating in a lot of field experiments, all demonstrating that most of these limiting issues could be fixed, provided a relevant approach is followed. For example, funding of network infrastructure construction is quite solved when project profitability is proven thanks to offering useful end-user services with high local added value; so, it becomes possible to attract potential investors; moreover, Internet illiterates and lowest income people could afford connectivity thanks to community centers. So, universal access to Internet can be no more a dream! My apologies but this is a circular argumentation. Jean-Marie starts off by saying at first that there is insufficient infrastructure, continuing then that there is limited income, not enough content and applications, no local expertise, no awareness. In any other field of market-economy the straight-forward conclusion would be that you try to sell a useless product and that therefore there is no demand and hence there are neither sales nor much product to sell. (Unless there is some strange conviction close to secular religion as if Internet penetration as such constitutes something desirable - despite that it's apparently of no valuable use). Please don't misunderstand me: I was an Internet-pioneer already en 1988, long before the Internet-hype started and I'm still almost fulltime engaged in promoting appropriate use of Internet in a not-so-developed country, Nicaragua. Yet I would insist that -- as in any market -- the starting point should be real needs (i.e. things that can be better solved or addressed using among other Internet-technologies). Better includes more efficiency - economically - but by no means is limited to more efficiency. In Saint-Louis (Senegal), one pediatrician serves more than ten thousand children. Here, the experimental project uses the Internet as a bridge between the patients (a group of one thousand infants) and the doctor. The weight of a child can be considered a key health indicator. It is measured twice a week by weight collectors, local women equipped with scales to weigh babies and a laptop computer to collect data. The measurements are then uploaded to the pediatrician's database via the Internet. Within five minutes, the doctor is able to detect which children have odd weight curves and require further attention. When that happens, he sends an e-mail to the weight collector, who in turn informs the family that the baby needs medical attention. Just counter-productive examples: your Tele-doctor is counter-productive for Public Health Education because instead of providing the local weighers with pen and each parent with a chart where they jointly put the weight-measure and compare it against standard-curves - and by doing this increase Health Awareness not only for the parents - you just electronify the very old fashioned wise man, who - only God knows how - is capable to predict which child is going to fall ill and which not. And as the poor and illiterate paid the wise man a couple of thousand years ago when he predicted seasons and eclipses, they now pay for health-predictions ... where in both cases if they were not kept ignorant they wouldn't pay a cent. Yours, Cornelio This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
[GKD] Literate Societies and the Internet
Dear all, Just as I had a recent presentation on the topic in El Salvador (for directors of primary and secondary schools, I'll forward the ppt in Spanish to whomever likes a copy), I would like to describe another pitfall or mistake committed many, many times by people from the north. They still do - as I did when arriving in the south 17 years ago - assume that the northern way of a literate society is the standard prototype of social organization, something that is wrong, completely wrong. What means literate society? It means a society in which - lieu of a very low rate of functional analphabets - social organization can be based on written rules and written communication. The literate society is a rather recent achievement of the north, as it goes far beyond individual literacy - you need at least 2 generations of ordinary literacy before you can switch your social system. When you don't have written rules and written communications, you do need other means to organize a society, namely direct personal relations by which small groups organize themselves and in which you have to build chains of intermediates to guarantee society coherence at large. (Most parachuters from the north misunderstand these necessities at the beginning only as nepotism, clientelism and so forth). Internet has a literate society as original background and - to my experience - simply will not work as expected if you transfer it into the context of an illiterate society. More, as stated above, the switch is a generational process not something that can just be pushed within a few years. It's not a question of local content, cheap access or Simputers - none of these changes the context. Internet is therefore useless in an illiterate society? It is not, if properly deployed. First and most important the literate-illiterate frontier has to be an explicit part of the design (e.g.. combinations with local Radio or local TV are not just less costly alternatives, they are ideal elements to bridge between both worlds). Similar others - like local technicians, local health- and education-personal, lawyers or law-procedure-helpers, more advanced merchants, religious ministers etc.- may act - as they do already in the pre-internet world - as bridging agents. And second - that was my key-point in the above presentation - intellectual skill training aimed to the internet-context and -usage but executed using just pencil and paper may help to prepare the next generation both for the literate society and Internet usage. (e.g. why not setup a paper-mail system within a school, where using invented nick-names, chain-letters, a physical mail-box and a pin-board, kids and teachers are trained in using written communication - instead of the accustomed oral direct communication). Similar is true for content-appreciation (which of the 80,000 pages Goggle returns, tells the truth?) or introduction of written rules. Almost all Internet-Collabra features had had there predecessors in the pre-internet times, such that they can be implemented (or simulated) even without any computer, or 1 local computer, or a local-only network long, long before the Broadband-Highspeed-Multimedia Internet arrives. (I dare to say that without this previous training the BHMI will be useless at best). Anyone else with similar experiences? Cornelio ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] The Great African Internet Robbery
Philipp Schmidt wrote: The ARPANET, the first stage of what has grown into today's Internet, was implemented by the U.S. military. It was then extended to be used by U.S. universities mainly for research purposes. It seems that anybody wanting to connect to the network that was up to this point payed for by U.S. tax money, should cover the costs needed to do so. If you want to come to the party - you pay for transportation. In addition the high costs of telecommunications in Africa are mostly due to monopolistic structures and mismanagement and I dont think the U.S. is to blame for that. Please jump on me - if you have evidence that says otherwise - I would be more than happy to revise this opinion. Dear Phillipp, Have a look at the below -taken from the ITU news-server- and you'll find that there do exist other opinions. And as you might note the US delegation rejected even the very weak recomendation to look bilateraly for more apropriate solutions. By the way: an Internet-E1 connection from Nicaragua to the Backbone somewhere in the US -- without any (!) local TELCO costs -- takes between 9,800 to 24,000 US$ a month -- depending on the period of the lease. This is 8 to 18 times what the same service -- no tax money involved anymore -- costs within the US. As obvious final enduser in Nicaragua either have to pay 8 to 18 times what they would pay in the US or get a 8 to 18 times poorer service (means email only, no high graphic web, no larger downloads). As long as this situation persists, there is a unilateral tariff-barrier which provokes in turn digital divide ... and even the most efective local TELCO can't change it. At the same time and applying general ITU principles, telephone traffic is handled on shared cost base with precentages varying according to who initated the call and who pays for it. Long distance moreover is only 3 times more expensive than same service within the US. Cornelio --- International Internet Connection The discussions on this very contentious issue found a positive outcome on the last day of the Assembly. The purpose of the recommendation is to set out the principle according to which there should be bilateral agreement when two providers establish a circuit between two countries for the purpose of carrying Internet traffic. The possible need for compensation between the providers has also been recognized. At present, when providers install Internet circuits, they generally have a choice between the sender-keeps-all or peering system of bilateral connections when traffic is more or less balanced, or the asymmetrical system whereby the initiating provider pays for the whole connection with the other country (full-circuit cost). The Recommendation endorsed by the WTSA, which represents a very delicate balance between the various interests, calls for arrangements to be negotiated and agreed upon on a commercial basis when direct Internet links are established internationally. The Recommendation requires only that the two providers involved reach a mutual agreement and does not prescribe any particular formula or system, thus leaving to providers their freedom to determine the forms or methodologies to be used in implementing the principle. The Recommendation, which is voluntary, suggests that parties involved take into account the possible need for compensation for elements such as traffic flow, number of routes, geographical coverage and the cost of international transmission among others when negotiating such commercial arrangements. In addition, the Assembly agreed that while international Internet connections remain subject to commercial agreements between operating agencies, there is a need for on-going studies in this area. The Chairman recalled that the decision made in Montreal provided a framework for future discussions and was therefore only the beginning of a process where issues would be further analyzed. Two countries - the US and Greece - made reservations and stated that they would not apply it in their international charging arrangements. The full text of the Recommendation can be found here: http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press/documents/wtsa2000rep.htm#Internation al ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD] The Great African Internet Robbery
You should be more precise: The world except US is being ripped off by the US Telcos. Reason: the situation you describe is true for all Internet-connections from outside the US. According to ITU we're talking about 500 Million (!) US$ anually at least that US Telcos would lose (or would have to charge to their US-clients) if the normal standard of halfway would be implemented. Please note that this does not give only unfair advantage to US-telcos but also unfair trading advantage to us-based companies (lower connection costs). The issue as such is recognized by ITU, however -due to close US-resistance as in other world organizations- not even a recomendation to change was possible. Cornelio ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member*** 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.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
