Presentation from
Robert Shaw
Version 1.0
See also : http://people.itu.int/~shaw/pov/index.html
This event is somewhat different from many of the Internet conferences in which I have participated - where it seems that Internet pundits compete with each other in arguing how wonderful the Internet is - and how it will bring everything up to and including world peace. I am, perhaps like many of you - somewhat more reticent in my enthusiasm; more jaded in my views. Instead of discussing just technology or the challenges of eCommerce, it is heartening to see others thinking more about what is the 'greater good' of civil society and how do we protect it.
There is no doubt that the growth of the Internet is truly amazing. There were fewer than 300 Internet host computers in 1980. In 1996, there were more than 10 million. The latest Network Wizards' survey, released in July 1999, indicates there are now over 56 million supporting an estimated 200 million users worldwide. The World Wide Web, created only a few years ago, is growing at the astonishing rate of hundreds of thousands of pages of data, pictures, sound, and text - each week.
Perhaps even more impressive is the number of countries connected to the global network. From just over twenty in 1990, there were more than 220 economies connected by January 1999. The Internet has truly become a global network as practically every country in the world now has some degree of connectivity.
Though these growth figures are impressive, there remain nevertheless great disparities in the availability of the Internet between high and low income regions. Most of us here share strong collective values of making available to all the benefits of telecommunications and the information revolution. We surely also recognize the importance of a healthy global information society to the world's economy - and especially the importance of not dividing the world into "information-haves" and "have-nots".
A few 'soundbites' demonstrate the current 'information-gap'. For example there are more hosts in Finland than all of Latin America and the Caribbean and there are more hosts in New York than in all of Africa. Indeed, currently some two-thirds of all Internet host computers are in North America. The Internet cannot be called a global network until these imbalances in its distribution are addressed.
The consumer concerns, which are slowing down the development of e-commerce in developed nations, such as those of Europe and North America, are different in nature from the concerns of the developing world. Developed countries have focussed on privacy and cryptography issues as well as uncertainty over tax regimes. For the most part, these difficulties can be overcome though there is plenty of work for international organisations such as the WTO, the OECD and indeed the ITU to do.
Among developing countries, lack of access to the Internet is the main problem constraining its growth followed by the slow speed and poor performance of Internet access where it is available. This in turn is related to the high prices charged by Public Telecommunication Operators and by Internet Service Providers, which are a further constraint on growth. Furthermore, the lack of local content, especially in local languages, is also a barrier to Internet development in many of the world's emerging economies.
It is an unavoidable fact that Internet access is currently more expensive in developing countries than in developed ones. This is partially due to the lack of infrastructure and the high prices for charged for leased lines. But is it also due to the fact that developing countries wishing to connect into the global Internet must normally pay both halves of the International leased line to access the Internet backbone, which is invariably in the United States. Furthermore, developing country ISPs are also usually required to pay for peering and transit of traffic.
This situation contrasts markedly with that which has historically prevailed on the telephone system, whereby net financial flows have historically been channeled towards the developing countries as a result of the operation of the accounting rate system. The emerging model of peering and transit on the Internet, by contrast, is channeling cash away from developing countries.
The ITU is attempting to help broaden the Internet revolution by assisting the developing world to get online.
For instance, in partnership with the private sector, the ITU is helping developing countries through its programme of establishing community telecentres, where anyone can access modern means of telecommunications. We also provide these countries with information and direct technical assistance in policy and regulatory matters, and help them to liberalize their telecommunication market.
Similarly, through our 'Electronic Commerce for Developing Countries' (EC-DC) pilot programme, the ITU is helping to demonstrate the utility of electronic commerce in South Africa, Morocco and Venezuela, with other projects planned.
Finally, through our recent publication entitled 'Challenges to the Network: Internet for Development', the ITU is helping to document and analyse the development of the Internet. The report provides case studies and best practice examples of the use of the Internet in developing countries for commerce, education and healthcare.
These are practical steps we are taking.
On a more philosophical note, I personally think that one of the greatest challenges to our reflecting on the 'greater good' issues of the Internet is getting past today's politically correct mantra that only the 'private sector' has a role to play in the Internet Economy or Information Society. There are many who, for various reasons, resist a role for governments or intergovernmental institutions. Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig argues in his insightful essay "Governance" [2], how infectious and politically correct is the idea that no government bodies, whether national or international, should have a role to play in regulating cyberspace. Lessig notes "We have lost the idea that ordinary government might work, and so deep is this thought that even the government doesn't consider the idea that government might have a role in governing cyberspace."
The irony is that most of us depend upon governments to protect civil society interests such as the right to personal privacy, consumer protection, or universal access. In a world of private sector rule, who will look after these interests?
Lessig continues 'but we should pause in this panic, for there are questions we should ask. When government steps aside, it is not as if nothing takes its place. When government disappears, it is not as if paradise prevails. It's not as if private interests has no interests; as if private interests don't have ends they then pursue. To push the anti-government button is not to teleport us to Eden. When the interests of government are gone, other interests take their place. Do we know what those interest are? Are we so certain they are anything better?'
I think we are slowly learning the intellectual shallowness of a private sector 'über alles' view. Lessig argues that 'we will confront this future well only when we have abandoned this self-indulgent anti-governmentalism. We will deal with it well only if we develop again a collective capacity to choose.' Lessig continues: 'we duck, we hope things will take care of themselves.'
I'm guessing that we won't be able to continue to 'duck': the Internet has become far too successful to be treated any different from the rest of society and economy.
[1] ITU Internet Policy and Strategy Advisor,
[2] http://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/Ny_q_d1.pdf