REPLY

This framework translates to the issue of bandwidth as well, not to mention basic computer (and Internet) literacy. It is a modus operandi professed by those who see themselves as savvy and sophisticated "net entrepreneurs." Ironically, those who talk glibly about the Internet as an egalitarian medium, one that "levels the playing field", are actually among the worst proponents of inequality and segregation. In a way, they have to be; if society (both online and offline) was not organized in a hierarchical manner, then the key to executive washroom would lose its significance.

One important factor has to be kept in mind: not everyone is interested in the web. Some are satisfied with basic e-mail. To give you an example: in the college where I used to work (a primary teacher training college, in where 97% of the student population is female), approximately 90% of net activity is simple e-mail using PINE or text chat using the linux talk command. Indeed, access to the server is done mostly through MINUET, a DOS-based application. Ironically, the majority of web use that does exist is done by the few males at the college, who mainly download games. As for the few females who use the web, their interest is in obtaining data -- information in text form -- such as music lyrics.

Although I have spent considerable amount of time trying to demonstrate to students the other features possible of the Internet, such as video and audio (phone, radio, etc), they are simply not interested. It is not only a question of the inability to use computers at home (and this leads to the quandary of money), but also a question of time. Many people still work at places where computer technology is not integrated within their work environment. Furthermore, leisure differs in many societies. In Hungary, for instance, people still go out more and seek personal contact, spending a considerable amount of their time in public or shared spaces (i.e., pubs, clubs, private parties, etc). Thus, they spend their time differently than those who live in, say, the US, where a TV culture is much more predominant (which, in turn, makes it easy to integrate computers into their daily lives). Of course the situation here in Hungary is changing, but it is not at the level of most western countries yet. Moreover, if you go further east, the situation there is apt to be even more different. Societies are not homogeneous; likewise, Central and Eastern Europe is not a homogeneous bloc. In a general comparison with the west, people here are more likely to go out for a couple of beers and talk about their personal problems to friends rather than adopt the American model of seeking professional help or, as the trend is now lately, seek companionship and entertainment by surfing through the web.

Taking all this into consideration, this does not mean that what ought to do is merely adopt a simplistic approach which would entail putting a freeze on development, i.e., the need for more bandwidth, in order to let the others catch up. Parallel development is possible: once again, it has to do with the commitment of industry, users, and government to recognize the need for universal, basic, free access on the one hand, and to recognize and respect the fact that there are others who don't or can't come up to speed, on the other. Therefore, time and money should be spent to keep support open for old technology. Old and new technology don't necessarily need to exclude one another. Hence, web sites should be developed, where possible, to accommodate for low band applications. The easiest way to do this is to have a mirror page which contains mostly textual data in a presentable and comprehensible form that can be accessed by applications other than Netscape and Internet Explorer, versions 3.0 and above. I can't see why net entrepreneurs and government would be aghast at the idea of free and basic access, along with parallel development, for more people online at different speeds mean they have a wider audience in which to try and do business (my concern here is not with their way of doing business, which I find objectionable and is a separate topic altogether).

So how should this translate into action on a broader scale? The solution lies not so much online as it does offline. Political pressure must be put on governments to support public funded infrastructure programs (e.g., the NIIF in Hungary); barriers to the donation of old technology must be demolished, which would require no tariffs nor restrictions of any kind for the import and export of such technology (for instance, state recycling programs can include a tax/cash incentive for individuals and businesses to not throw out old technology but donate them to certain "aid" agencies which, in turn, would make sure they are in proper working order before donating them to the needy); intergovernmental relations should put the development of digital infrastructure on their agenda, linking such development to the granting of certain trade privileges and aid packages; access should be viewed as a right and not a privilege, and perhaps should be adopted by the international community and worked into their constitutions as a human right of sorts.

The list can go on. Meanwhile, all this can be done alongside demands for more bandwidth. Indeed, by instigating a program of basic access, it would then be easier to pressure governments and business for increased bandwidth. I do not see where parallel development of basic access and increased bandwidth would be in conflict.

Having said thus, this is where the biggest difficulty lies, for we have to keep things in perspective: about two-thirds of the world have never even used a telephone; indeed, to this we have to add the more basic needs of hunger, shelter, basic education (i.e., functional literacy) and meaningful employment. Nevertheless, in the same way that polio has been combated and that the rights of women are being asserted, all this despite poverty and hunger lingering in the background, so too can basic access and the right for reasonable bandwidth be added to the agenda. However, it must be kept in mind that a solution will not be found overnight, nor can the problem be alleviated with ease nor in its entirety. As with the rights of women, for instance, much is still left to be done -- not only on a worldwide level, but within the most affluent of societies as well.

Such an enormous task, which more than likely won't be fulfilled within our own lifetimes, does not mean that we should lose heart and give up trying to achieve an ultimate, ideal goal; at the same time, however, we should keep at least one foot on the ground and not delude ourselves by blind idealism. By all means, the first step is empathy toward those who are trying at slow speed to take an active part online, coupled with an honest commitment to do our utmost to get those online who can't afford to, with the help of that old 2400 bps modem gathering dust in our closets.

Sorry for rambling a bit. I hope from this verbosely inflated reply you have been able to get at the essence of what I was trying to say.

All the best,

John