Newsgroups: workspace.g-we_want_bandwidth,
workspace.we_want_bandwidth


previous    top    workgroup    thread    next


Subject: John Horvath second reaction
From: marleen <marleen@waag.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 13:46:03 METDST

* * * * *

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:09:03
From: John Horvath <h8801joh@ella.hu>
X-Sender: jhorv@helka
To: stikker@waag.org
Subject: reply

Marleen,
Here's a reply to your message. In short, the way out I see is through
parallel development. Unfortunately, as with any major social
question (and I consider bandwidth a major social question) there is
no easy "answer" per se, but only attempts at coming as close to one
as possible. It is much like absolute truth; there is no such thing.
The crux of the problem is not technical but the prevailing
philosophy presently driving economics and politics, especially here
in Hungary, which is that of the "free market". Social provision to
the poor is being seen as obtrusive and a hindrance to development
and modernization. People are expected to fend for themselves in a
perverted Darwinian model of "survival of the fittest." Moreover, an
undertone is being reinforced that is much like the "blame the victim"
stigma attached to many cases of rape -- she asked for it. Therefore,
the reason people are the way they are or are in the situation they
are in is because they brought it on themselves. Hence, privatization
must be harsh to those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder
because the duty of government now is not to provide assistance but
to teach people that it does not pay to be poor.
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