[WSIS CS-Plenary] The Economist on the 'realdigitaldivide'

[Sasha Costanza-Chock]

I apologize for bringing this back on-list, but I think it's actually 
the real heart of the debate over 'financial mechanisms,' as well as the 
next phase of the Summit (and beyond).

I agree with the points you've both made. What I'm most concerned about 
is not the statement of the underlying problem - 'digital divide' is a 
mask for other divides, economic, literacy, gender, etc. - but the 
cock-sure 'answer' proposed by the Economist: (surprise surprise) 
liberalize and privatize and the market will take care of everyone.

Even the World Bank's latest report expresses the fact that the market 
simply won't provide solutions for large segments of the population. Of 
course, they frame it as 'market failures' rather than as inherent to 
markets, and tend to argue that we can't really see what markets can do 
until everything has been deregulated and privatized and opened without 
reservation to global financial flows.

I think to me one of the most important understandings, obviously not 
reflected in the Economist article, is that when we demand public 
service committments from communications firms, be it in the form of 
free access for public institutions, universities, community centers; a 
percentage of profits for funding development and nonprofit 
communication activity; open access to backbone; set-aside of channels 
and spectrum for nonprofit use; or any of the other myriad mechanisms, 
we can't let them frame it as if they are being generous by providing 
any of these things (or as the Economist would have it, at best, being 
foolish by 'intervening' in market allocation).

Rather, we have to ensure that everyone understands that we're not 
begging here for a piece of the pie that someone else baked: the 
communications industry relies on access to what should be considered 
_public goods_ (most obviously, perhaps, spectrum and satellite orbits, 
we can also talk about massive state investments in research and 
infrastructure, and let's not even mention copyright and patents here). 
Private communication firms exist and are able to make money hand over 
fist because governments offer them huge swaths of valuable common 
resources, and then enforce (using more public funds!) private monopoly 
control.

We have to shift the debate so that the 'burden of proof' is not on us 
(civil society) to justify our demands for chump change, but instead on 
the States to meet the concrete goals of universal access (which also 
means addressing the other barriers that lie behind it). The key is that 
obviously, individual States can no longer make the necessary demands on 
the private sector, because any State that tries this alone will see 
massive capital flight and economic collapse ('discipline.') So, our 
demands have to be made across borders to be effective. That's why we're 
engaging in the WSIS process in the first place...

sasha


Andy Carvin wrote:
> agreed. :-)
> 
> Anyway, I'm hoping to take a crack at writing a letter to the editor in 
> the next day or so.
> 
> ac
> 
> Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
>> <off list - cs plenary is noisy enough>
>>
>> I guess my point is that any focus on a specific technology is wrong.
>> Mobile phones/Internet/<latest trendy tech here/ doesn't cause
>> development, development causes people to be able to afford technology.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> acarvin at edc.org 3/13/2005 5:40:28 PM >>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think there are many digital divide activists who would argue 
>> that illiteracy isn't one of the fundamental barriers to bridging the 
>> digital divide.... Combatting illiteracy is a primary aspect of 
>> thousands of digital divide initiatives around the world. My primary 
>> concern with the article is that it seems to suggest that mobile phones
>>
>> are the only technology we should be focusing on, which is just as 
>> misguided as arguing that computers are the only tool that should be 
>> addressing. It's not an either-or debate. They're using a rather narrow
>>
>> definition of the digital divide to suit their purposes....
>>
>> ac
>>
>> Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Milton Mueller
>>> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> schock at riseup.net 3/13/2005 10:56:52 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone have time write a good response to this? In fact they would 
>>>> probably publish a thoughtful response letter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would hope that any thoughtful response will recognize that the
>>> fundamental premise expressed below, is true:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> ...the digital divide is not a problem in
>>>> itself, but a symptom of deeper, more important divides: of income,
>>>> development and literacy. Fewer people in poor countries than in
>>
>>
>> rich
>>
>>>> ones own computers and have access to the internet simply because
>>>
>>>
>>> they
>>>
>>>
>>>> are too poor, are illiterate, or have other more pressing concerns,
>>>
>>>
>>> such
>>>
>>>
>>>> as food, health care and security. So even if it were possible to
>>
>>
>> wave
>>
>>> a
>>>
>>>
>>>> magic wand and cause a computer to appear in every household on
>>>
>>>
>>> earth,
>>>
>>>
>>>> it would not achieve very much: a computer is not useful if you have
>>>
>>>
>>> no
>>>
>>>
>>>> food or electricity and cannot read.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Plenary mailing list
>>> Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
>>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary 
>>
>>
>>
>