[Fsf-india] Low-Cost ICT Strategies

[Tapan S. Parikh]

Just got around to reading this, and some very compelling arguments /
observations are made.  I particularly like his treatment of Free /
Open Software.   Excuse me if this has been cross-posted already.

--Tapan

>
> Message: 4
> From: "Roberto Verzola" <rverzola@gn.apc.org>
> Organization: Philippine Greens
> To: SOLARIS <solaris@mail.sarai.net>
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:12:20 +0800
> Reply-To: rverzola@gn.apc.org
> Subject: [solaris]Low-cost strategies for developing countries
>
> In connection with the OneWorld posting on their open knowledge
> strategy, I would like to post a similar set of strategies, in a
piece I
> released three years back.
>
> Increasingly, the main obstacle towards sharing of knowledge is the
> privatization of knowledge through information monopolies such as
> intellectual property rights (IPRs), esp. today when the cost of
> reproducing information is approaching zero. (Same trend in
> biotech, DNA being genetic information.)
>
> The OneWorld paper seems to put IPRs first, sharing second. Thus
> its default is to protect IPRs. The 5-point strategy suggested in my
> paper puts sharing first, IPRs second. The default is to share
freely.
>
> I enclose the paper below.
>
> Roberto Verzola
> Philippines
>
> Low-cost strategies for ICT deployment in developing
> countries
>
>  Introduction
>
> The distinguishing feature of the information sector of the
> economy lies in the nature of information. The unique features of
this
> sector therefore are better appreciated by first studying the nature
of
> information.
>
> Information refers to a new awareness which resolves
> existing uncertainty. It is non-material. An expectant mother, for
> instance, may be uncertain about the sex of her child. When the
> doctor tells her, "it's a girl," the uncertainty has been resolved.
The
> mother has received the smallest amount of information possible: the
> resolution of uncertainty between two equally possible outcomes.
> This smallest measure of information is called the bit. There are
> millions of ways a blank page may be filled with letters. A poem by
> Shakespeare resolves this uncertainty by providing one of all
possible
> ways and therefore provides the reader a much bigger amount of
> information (among other things of course). There are billions of
> ways bits may be strung up serially on the tracks of a diskette. A
> particular program represents one instance of these billions of
> possibilities, another example of information.
>
> The non-material nature of information distinguishes the
> information sector from two other major sectors of the economy.
> The industrial sector is the sector of material goods which are non-
> living. And the agricultural and fishery sector is the sector of
living
> goods.
>
> While information itself is non-material, it may need a
> material medium for storage and persistence. The baby's sex is
> information stored in the doctor's mind, later copied to the
mother's.
> Shakespeare's poems are stored in books, on paper and ink.
> Computer programs are stored on magnetic or optical media. [1]
>
> The development of new information and communications
> technologies (ICTs) has propelled the full emergence of the
> information economy by making it easier and easier to transfer
> information from one medium to another and from one form to
> another. Digital technologies have further revolutionized ICTs, by
> allowing these transfers and transformations to occur with no
> information loss. With today's technologies, the cost of replicating
> information without loss is approaching zero. I explained further
the
> implications of such low replication cost in the article "Towards a
> Political Economy of Information" (URL:
> http://glocal.peacenet.or.kr/training/).
>
> High start-up costs, near-zero marginal costs
>
> From this, we note another distinguishing feature of
> information goods: while the cost of moving or copying them is
> approaching zero, the initial costs involved in creating new
> information or in building the infrastructure for moving and
> manipulating them remain relatively high.
>
> It takes a lot of effort to invent a new design, write a book,
> or develop software. But the cost of replicating them, once they are
> developed, is nearly zero. It also takes much resources to set up
> information infrastructures like transmitting stations, telephone
> exchanges, microwave repeaters, satellite facilities, copper and
fiber
> optic lines, oceanic cables, etc. But once they are in place, the
> marginal cost of information transfer through these facilities is
nearly
> zero.
>
> Because of this, ICTs are very often much more accessible
> to those who can afford the high start up costs, than to those who
> cannot, to the rich than to the poor. Yet, those who are privileged
to
> have access will then enjoy much lower marginal costs than those
> who don't and will therefore be in a much better position to compete
> vis-a-vis the latter. In short, the rich will tend to become richer,
and
> the poor poorer. While there will obviously be exceptions, the logic
of
> the information sector -- with its very high entry costs and very
low
> marginal costs for those who are in -- will generally work in favor
of
> those who have the resources, capital and existing infrastructure to
> take full advantage of the benefits of ICTs.
>
> Form of income: Information rents
>
> Because of the high costs of entry, it is often those who have
> access to huge resources who are in a position to set up the
facilities
> for full utilization of the technology. In terms of content and
software
> tools, private investors who do so clinch their control through
> statutory monopolies like patents and copyrights, which grant them
> the exclusive right to use the resources they have developed. In
terms
> of the communications infrastructure, the huge investments involved
> exclude all but a few huge firms, who then lease out the resource
> under their control to other users. Either way, private control over
the
> software and hardware infrastructure enables the owners to extract
> rents over the information resource.
>
> This rent-seeking system eventually extracts from the public
> wealth that is way beyond the cost of setting up and maintaining the
> system. The rent-seekers of the cyber-economy, or the cyberlords,
> therefore become the superfluous and unwelcome propertied classes
> of the information economy. In the article "Cyberlords: the rentier
> class of the information sector", I discussed in detail the nature
of this
> rent-seeking system and how it manages to concentrate wealth in the
> propertied class of the information economy.
>
> ICTs and the Internet: a critique
>
> In the articles "The Internet: A Second Opinion" (URL:
> http://glocal.peacenet.or.kr/training/) and "Globalization: The
Third
> Wave" (URL: http://global.peacenet.or.kr/training/), I explained in
> more detail how the Internet has in fact become the leading edge of
> the global information economy, the new infrastructure for marketing
> the information products of the more technologically advanced
> countries. As such, it will will facilitate the intrusion of global
capital
> into developing countries, the extraction of more wealth from these
> countries, and an even faster concentration of wealth among rich
> countries and global corporations. My critique of the new ICTs, best
> represented by the Internet, may be summarized as follows:
>
> - The entry costs are very expensive, and these entry costs
> recur every three to five years, as rapid obsolescence forces the
> frequent replacement of hardware and software. In effect, those who
> join the Internet are caught in a expensive technology trap. While
> many of the supposed benefits of these new ICTs may eventually
> prove to be illusory, the high costs of entry are very real.
>
> - In reality, the Internet is emerging as the infrastructure for
> the marketing and distribution of the information products of rich
> countries. The more it penetrates into developing countries, the
> greater the market of information economies expands.
>
> - The Internet will also facilitate rapid financial transactions
> which will benefit most the huge finance firms who have the
facilities,
> clout and connection to take the best advantage of the new ICTs.
> These will all hasten the ongoing concentration of wealth.
>
> - ICTs will further weaken labor and strengthen capital, as
> machines are more and more in a position to replace labor and as the
> technology enables tighter management control. Many people will
> lose their jobs to machines, and new jobs created by new
> technologies will not be secure either, as they will also be under
threat
> from a new round of replacement. On the other hand, ICTs will
> facilitate managing-at-a-distance even better than working-at-a-
> distance, empowering capital even more than labor.
>
> - The benefits of the Internet will be best enjoyed by those
> who live in countries where the ICT infrastructures are most
> developed. Most resources and effort spent on serving information on
> the Internet will not help the poorest and the least advantaged, who
> cannot afford commercial Internet services and whose lives revolve
> around basic needs and survival concerns.
>
> - Many of the promised benefits of the Internet will be as
> illusory as the broken promises of television, which has become the
> idiot box of the 20th century. The ongoing commercialization of the
> Internet will tend to turn it into the TV --  and idiot box -- of
the 21st
> century.
>
> - In fact, very few seem to be looking at the negative effects
> of ICTs. The issue of radiation and its impact on human health
> persists -- from the near-microwave frequencies of the cell phone,
to
> the video monitor radiation that direct shines on the user's eyes,
to
> the very low frequency of power lines -- and remains a matter of
> dispute. The increasing dependence on computers for mental work,
> thinking, and even entertainment reminds us of the deleterious
effects
> on the human body of machine-dependence and its resulting lack of
> exercise.
>
> To be connected or not?
>
> To some, these misgivings are enough reason to stay away
> from these technologies. Yet, the option to completely reject the
new
> ICTs may have its own pitfalls. While one can argue that to use them
> is to immediately get trapped in a losing battle; one can also argue
> that not to use them is to lose the battle by default. But is the
battle in
> the information arena in fact worth fighting, or are we simply being
> drawn away from what are real wealth -- our ecological wealth, our
> natural resources, our cultural heritage -- to be exchanged with
virtual
> and perhaps illusory wealth?
>
> The answers do not come so easily. Perhaps, we need to
> know more about the technology itself and to dip one foot to check
> the waters while reserving the option to get out if sharks and
> crocodiles lie in wait.
>
> If a developing country -- fully aware of the pitfalls and traps
> that lie in wait -- nonetheless wants to tap ICTs and continue
> exploring the possibility of bringing their benefits to its people,
what
> then are the options available to such a country? This is the
question
> we will try to answer for the rest of this paper.
>
> Cost of entry is a barrier
>
> A real obstacle to the introduction of ICTs in a developing
> country is the high entry cost of the technologies.
>
> In the Philippines, for instance, the following summarizes the
> costs of providing 51% of Filipino families access to different
> technologies:
>
> Technology, Current reach, Cost per family, Total
> Cost for 51%  reach
>
> B&W TV only, 43% , $100, $102M
> Color TV only, 14%, $300, $1,413M
> VCR, 12%,, $250, $1,241M
> Cable TV, 2%, $1,000, $6,236M
> Telephone, 6%, $1,000, $5,727M
> Fax, 1%, $200, $1,273M
> Internet, 0.1%, $1,000, $6,478M
> CDROM/DVD, 0.1%, $300, $1,943M
> Virtual Reality, 0%, $2,000 (?), $12,982M
> Radio, 84%, $10, $20M (100% reach)
>
> Total $37,314M
>
> Considering the rapid developments in the field, some of
> these technologies become obsolete rather quickly, forcing those who
> have made commitments to deploy them into another round of huge
> investments every few years or so.
>
> Responding to high costs
>
> The introduction of ICTs is clearly an expensive proposition
> for most developing countries. They compete for our peoples' time,
> skills and attention, taking resources away from essential
activities
> like food production, health services, basic education and so on.
Yet,
> the possibilities of the new technologies are also tantalizing, and
many
> people sincerely feel that these technologies also have some
benefits
> to offer and, properly deployed, can facilitate solutions in
providing
> for basic needs.
>
> How does a poor country solve the problem of providing for
> its people facilities which are terribly expensive and which are
hardly
> affordable? I propose a five-point strategy for doing so:
>
> - stick to the idea of appropriate technology, make do
> without the online frills, and concentrate on low-cost offline
> technologies, which can bring in the most essential services;
>
> - use free/open software where they are available, because
> they take full advantage of the benefits of pooling together the
> intellectual resources not only of a country but of the whole
Internet
> community;
>
> - apply genuine compulsory licensing where commercial
> software is the only option; GCL is an internationally-recognized
> mechanism that allows poor countries access to technologies on their
> own terms;
>
> - set up public access stations that do not require the ordinary
> citizen to pay a fixed monthly charge; and
>
> - work out a system of public ownership over the hardware
> infrastructure to minimize rent-seeking by private interests, which
can
> lead to further concentration of wealth.
>
> Appropriate technologies
>
> Countries must practise extreme care in selecting the
> technologies to tap, identifying those which are lower-cost,
simpler,
> and capable enough to provide the most essential services. Often, as
> Schumacher pointed out, these are intermediate technologies, which
> greatly improve on the old ways of doing things but are very
> accessible to poor communities because the technologies are simpler
> and more affordable. Schumacher's ideas remains as relevant as ever
> in the information sector.
>
> An example of appropriate technology is low-power,
> community-based radio broadcasting. As the table of technology
> costs above shows in the case of the Philippines, this technology
can
> provide 100% access and approximate interactivity with very
> affordable investments, while the more advanced technologies would
> require billions of dollars of investments every several years or so
and
> yet leave half of the population unserved.
>
> In computer communications, appropriate technology would
> be offline technologies, i.e., technologies based on
store-and-forward
> email and email-based services such as mailing lists, email-enabled
> access to ftp sites, Web sites, etc. Such technologies would be
text-
> mostly, offline, low-bandwidth, and low-cost. They would run over
> the basic POTS ("plain old telephone system") network, instead of
> requiring a huge and expensive network of dedicated data lines.
>
> Free/open software
>
> The basic principle in overcoming high resource requirements
> is to pool meager resources and the share the benefits with as many
> people as possible. This is exactly what free/open software does: it
> pools the intellectual resources available over the Internet, and
shares
> the results freely with the rest of the world.
>
> The result is something dramatic, effective and reliable.
> Free/open software have proven themselves equal to if not better
> than commercial software in terms of quality and reliability.
>
> The most popular example of this approach is the
> Linux/GNU operating system.
>
> A philosophy of freedom
>
> Linux represents a philosophy of freedom. It is freedom that
> makes free software like Linux/GNU "free": the freedom to use it;
> the freedom to copy and share it; and the freedom to modify it,
> because the source code is available.
>
> These freedoms are the mark of free software. A legal
> document called the General Public License (GPL) was carefully
> formulated by the Free Software Foundation, also headed by Richard
> Stallman, to protect these freedoms while the protected software
goes
> through the process of use, sharing and modification. Thus, free
> software can also be defined as software that is protected under the
> GPL.
>
> The access to source code that Linux/GNU makes possible
> represents at the R&D level the same kind of pooling of resources,
an
> approach perfectly suited to a poor country like the Philippines.
>
> The source code of a computer program is the equivalent of
> the schematic diagram of a piece of electronic equipment, the
> architectural plans of a building, or the mechanical drawings of a
> machine. Once a piece of equipment, a building, or a machine
> becomes complicated enough -- as most pieces of software are --
> modification becomes extremely difficult without the corresponding
> schematic diagram, architectural plan, mechanical drawing, or source
> code.
>
> Microsoft doesn't make its source code available;
> Linux/GNU does. Since the Linux source code is available, Linux can
> be customized much more easily and flexibly than software without
> source code. Windows users have to wait a long time for an
> improved version of the software to be released by Microsoft. Linux
> is being improved all the time by the Internet community, which
> includes thousands of independent developers and programmers who
> volunteer their time and effort making the software faster, more
> robust, and generally better.
>
> Working in harmony with the nature of information
>
> One of the key concepts in ecology, is the idea of harmony.
> We must learn to search for harmony and to work for it, because the
> dynamic balance that it represents gives peace to our lives. Thus,
> today, it is now commonly accepted that we must work in harmony
> with nature instead of in opposition to it. For to conquer nature
and
> to defeat it is, in truth, a self-defeating goal, because we are
part of
> nature.
>
> Information has its own nature. It is non-material; basically a
> numeric measure of resolving uncertainty. By its nature, information
> is easy to duplicate at little cost, unlike material goods which
require
> significant amounts of matter and energy to go into every unit. As
the
> economist would say, the marginal cost of reproducing information
> approaches zero. It is this nature of information which determines
its
> social character, why people tend to copy it, to share it, to
exchange
> it. As the mathematician would say, the acquisition of information
is
> not a zero-sum game, it is a positive sum-game. To use a popular
> term today, sharing information goods like software is a "win-win"
> situation, because you do not lose what you give away.
>
> Free software like Linux/GNU works in harmony with the
> nature of information, because it recognizes and takes advantage of
> its social nature. Intellectual property rights (IPR) like software
> copyrights, on the other hand, work against the nature of
information
> because they create statutory monopolies that artifically create
> information scarcity, so that the privileged monopolists can dictate
> their price of a good that, by nature, is easily available to all
once
> created.
>
> That is why, despite that power of Bill Gates and his fellow
> cyberlords, they will never be able to completely implement their
so-
> called property rights over information, because they work against
the
> very nature of information. The social nature of information will
> continually assert itself and people will continue to copy and to
share
> whatever information they find useful and worth sharing. On the
> other hand, free software and its copying license, the GPL, work in
> perfect harmony with the nature of information. In the future, IPR
> will become obsolete and GPL and similar practices consistent with
> information's social nature will become the general rule.
>
> When we work in harmony with the nature of information, it
> becomes easier to improve, and its quality, reliability and
usefulness
> rised rapidly This is probably why Linux is superior to Microsoft
> Windows in many respects. It can do many tasks (multitasking) and
> service many users (multiuser) at the same time. It has all the
> facilities for communicating with other computers (networking): it
can
> be used as a workstation, as a server, or both; e-mail is built-in;
and it
> is Internet-ready. Linux can also be configured with a graphical
user
> interface. Unlike Windows which inexplicably stops every now and
> then (sometimes taking your work file with it), Linux machines run
> twenty-four hours a day for months with no problem. Ask any local
> Internet service provider (ISP): many use Linux, hardly any uses
> Windows NT.
>
> Linux, furthermore, is Unix-compatible, a Unix look-alike.
> Who hasn't heard of Unix? It is THE operating system, the one
> which runs on almost every computer from lowly 386s to
> supercomputing Crays. Nearly all computer science departments in
> every self-respecting university in the world use Unix as their
> platform for teaching and research. The latest developments in
> computer science often make their appearance on Unix first, before
> trickling down later to other operating systems like Microsoft
> Windows or the Mac OS.
>
> Social movements and non-government organizations
> (NGOs) should look beyond the cost effectiveness of Linux, into its
> philosophy of freedom in software. It is a philosophy consistent
with
> the advocacies of cause-oriented groups, voluntary associations and
> alternative movements -- a philosophy of pooling resources, sharing,
> and working in harmony with nature and with information.
>
> Genuine compulsory licensing (GCL)
>
> If the General Public License (GPL) ensures public access to
> free/open software, genuine compulsory licensing (GCL) provides an
> internationally-recognized mechanism for public access to commercial
> software and other copyrighted or patented goods.
>
> GCL works as follows: Somebody who wants to
> use/commercialize patented or copyrighted material approaches NOT
> the patent or copyright holder, but the government for a license to
do
> so. The government grants the license, whether the original patent
or
> copyright holder agrees or not, but compels the local licensee to
pay
> the patent/copyright holder a royalty rate that is fixed by law.
Many
> countries in the world have used and continue to use compulsory
> licensing for important products like pharmaceuticals and books, in
> order to bring down their prices and make them more affordable to
> ordinary citizens.
>
> GCL would legalize the operations of computer shops which
> offer copying of commercial software as a service to the public, but
> would require these shops to pay a reasonable royalty -- usually
> between 5 and 10 percent of the local price of copied item -- to the
> original copyright owners. It would allow the government television
> channel, for instance, to show on television the Discovery Series,
> while paying a reasonable royalty set by law.
>
> Genuine compulsory licensing (also called mandatory
> licensing in some countries) is a demand of many countries who want
> to access technologies but cannot afford the price set by
> patent/copyright holders. While this internationally-recognized
> mechanism was meant for the benefit of poorer countries, even the
> U.S. and many European countries use it.
>
> In the article "Cyberlords: the rentier class of the information
> sector", I explained why GCL is an important demand which not only
> helps poor countries to acquire access to expensive technologies on
> their own terms, but which also splits the cyberlord class because
> small cyberlords welcome GCL while big cyberlords oppose it.
>
> When referring to compulsory licensing, it is important to
> emphasize that it must be genuine, because the GATT/WTO
> agreement pays lip service to compulsory licensing but defines it in
a
> way that negates its essential purpose by giving back to cyberlords
> the power to set the terms of the license.
>
> What about hardware?
>
> Even free software like Linux/GNU are expensive in terms of
> the hardware necessary to run them and the time needed to learn
> them, to master them, and to modify them for our particular
> requirements. These additional investments have to be justified
vis-a-
> vis the competing requirements of our impoverished people, only a
> small minority of which have access to potable water, to medical
care
> or to a telephone.
>
> Unlike information goods, hardware is material. Therefore,
> the cost of replicating hardware and building infrastructure cannot
> take advantage of the near-zero marginal cost that information goods
> enjoy. Harware is therefore expensive.
>
> To look at the options open to a developing country which
> wants to provide access to ICTs to its citizens despite the huge
capital
> requirements for doing so, it is useful to go back to the
information
> superhighway analogy. A government which wants to provide
> universal access to transportation services will have the following
> approaches available:
>
> * one family / one car
> * walkways, bicycles
> * efficient public transport
>
> Most U.S. cities have taken the first approach. This is
> unfortunately the default approach taken by many developing
> countries, which mistake a car-oriented society as a mark of
progress.
> This misguided policy is further encouraged by industrial economies
> which export cars and other transport equipment to developing
> countries. A common way of doing so is by granting loans to cash-
> strapped governments to enable them to engage in road-building
> sprees so that people will buy more cars. We know today that this
> approach is unsustainable even for rich countries which may be able
> to afford them. There will certainly be not enough resources
available
> to provide the metal as well as the fuel necessary to provide one
car
> for every Indian or Chinese family. Even if there were, our
> atmosphere will never be able to accomodate the highly pollutive as
> well as greenhouse gases that will be emitted as a result of such an
> approach.
>
> Despite this, many developing countries continue to consider
> increasing car ownership as an indicator of national progress.
>
> The second approach would emphasize non-motorized
> transport systems like covered walkways and bike paths. To a poor
> country, bicycle manufacturing is much more technologically
> accessible than car manufacturing. It will also require much less in
> terms of a road network and fuel. This is, recalling Schumacher,
> appropriate technology.
>
> The third approach is one that emphasizes public access to a
> commonly-owned resource that is too expensive to be acquired on an
> individual basis. It nicely complements the second approach.
>
> While the three approaches are not necessarily mutually
> exclusive, it often happens that one option precludes the other. In
> Metro Manila, for instance, government transport policies were
> heavily biased in favor of private cars, resulting in a rapid
increase in
> private car ownership in the region. As the traffic situation
> deteriorated and road congestion worsened, it became very difficult
> to expand public transport services as the politically powerful car
> lobby insisted on retaining the private car biases in the
government's
> transport policies. Therefore, instead of improving the bus and
> jeepney system, the government took the much more expensive
> option of building overhead rail systems, which will displace buses
> and jeepneys and free more roads for even more private cars.
>
> Had the government paid early attention to the development
> of alternative transport systems like walkways, bike paths and an
> efficient public bus system, middle class families would not have
> found the private car a necessity for urban living, and neither
would it
> have been necessary to build very expensive overhead rail-based
> systems. The experience of Curitiba in Brazil is a good example of
> this enlightened approach.
>
> Unfortunately, government are often drawn away from this
> enlightened approach by the attractive loans dangled before them by
> countries who want them to build more roads instead so that they can
> buy more cars.
>
> The clear lesson from this experience is that an early
> enlightened approach can make it much easier for a government to
> provide universal public access at a much lower cost, than if market
> forces were allowed to rule and set the direction of development of
> services. Letting the "free market" direct the deployment of
> infrastructure would lock a country into very expensive options
which
> are most beneficial only for the suppliers of the technology.
>
> Let us now pose the question: what would be the analogue in
> the information sector of walkways, bike paths, and an efficient
> public transport system, the approach that makes much more sense,
> particularly to developing countries, that the one-family, one-car
> approach?
>
> The hardware solution: public facilities / universal access
>
> Publicly-owned, publicly-accessible facilities represent this
> strategy of resource-pooling and resource-sharing, a proven strategy
> among poor countries. This approach contrasts sharply with what
> seems today to be the dominant idea for introducing ICTs: "a
> computer on every desktop," recalling the "one family, one car"
> approach in the transportation sector.
>
> These two contrasting approaches are as follows:
>
> - public libraries vs. a library in every home
> - public viewing centers vs. a television in every home
> - public calling stations vs. a telephone in every home
> - the public access terminals vs. a computer on every
> desktop
>
> The first represents a community-oriented approach that
> emphasizes sharing and minimizes cost; the second represents an
> individualistic approach that creates a huge demand for suppliers.
>
> It is clear what strategy the ICT industry wants governments
> to take. It is also clear what strategy will be able to deliver
universal
> access at a cost which cash-strapped governments can afford.
>
> Unfortunately, many governments do not give this issue
> much thought, and accept without question the approach which the
> ICT industry is taking. The Philippine government, for instance, had
> in 1998 a project to install a public calling station in every one
of the
> 1,500 municipalities of the country. The budget for the project was
> drastically reduced; instead the government is relying on private
> telcos to install telephones, which they are doing, but mostly in
urban
> centers, and the target is to install one in every home.
>
> Public ownership of the infrastructure
>
> Because the ICT infrastructure is very expensive, the effort
> to set it up presents an opportunity for collective pooling of
resources
> by an entire community. Once the infrastructure is set up, it can
then
> offer universal access, charging only enough to maintain good
quality
> service and provide for future requirements. This is the rationale
for
> public ownership of natural monopolies and large infrastructures.
>
> To open such public works to private ownership open the
> door to rent-seeking with no time bound, extracts additional cost
from
> users to support the profit-driven rent-seekers who will charge as
> much as the market will bear, and contributes to the further
> concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich. Because of the low
> marginal costs of moving and reproducing information goods, the
> information sector attracts more than its usual share of
rent-seekers.
> A conscious effort by the government to encourage public or
> community ownership of ICT infrastructures can avoid this problem.
>
> Conclusion: The Philippine Greens' Programme for the
> Information Sector
>
> Within the Philippine Greens, we have developed a critical
> analysis of the emerging global information economy and have
> formulated what we believe is an appropriate set of responses to the
> entry into our country of the Internet and various other information
> and communications technologies (ICTs). This set of responses
> contains many of the elements discussed above, as well as other
> policies which, we hope, represent a well-rounded policy framework
> for the information sector.
>
> These information policies include:
>
> 1. The right to know. It is the government's duty to inform
> its citizens about matters that directly affect them, their families
or
> their communities. Citizens have the right to access these
> information. Neither the State nor private corporations may use
> "national security", "confidentiality of commercial transactions",
or
> "trade secret" as reasons to curtail this right.
>
> 2. The right to privacy. The government must not probe the
> private life of its citizens. Citizens have the right to access
> information about themselves which have been collected by
> government agencies. The government must not centralize these
> separate databases by building a central database or by adopting a
> unified access key to the separate databases. Nobody should be
> forced against their will to reveal any information they do not want
to
> make public.
>
> 3. No patenting of life. The following, whether or not
> modified by human intervention, may not be patented: life forms,
> biological and microbiological materials, biological and
microbiological
> processes, genetic information.
>
> 4. The moral rights of intellectuals. Those who actually
> create an intellectual work or originate an idea have the right to
be
> recognized that they did so. Nobody may claim authorship of works
> or ideas they did not originate. No one can be forced to release or
> modify a work or idea if he or she is not willing to do so. These
and
> other moral rights of intellectuals will be respected and protected.
>
> 5. The freedom to share. The freedom to share and exchange
> information and knowledge must be recognized and protected. This
> freedom must take precedence over information monopolies such as
> intellectual property rights (IPR) that the State grants to
intellectuals.
>
> 6. Universal access. The government will facilitate universal
> access by its citizens to the world's storehouse of knowledge. Every
> community needs access to books, cassettes, videos, tapes, radio and
> TV programs, software, etc. The government will set up a wide range
> of training and educational facilities to enable community members
to
> continually expand their know-how and knowledge.
>
> 7. Compulsory licensing. Universal access to information
> content is best achieved through compulsory licensing. Under this
> internationally-practiced mechanism, the government itself licenses
> others to copy patented or copyrighted material for sale to the
public,
> but compels the licensees to pay the patent or copyright holder a
> government- set royalty fee. This mechanism is a transition step
> towards non-monopolistic payments for intellectual activity.
>
> 8. Public stations. Universal access to information
> infrastructure is best achieved through public access stations,
charging
> subsidized rates. These can include well-stocked public libraries;
> public telephone booths; community facilities for listening to or
> viewing training videos, documentaries, and the classics; public
> facilities for telegraph and electronic mail; educational radio and
TV
> programs; and public stations for accessing computer networks.
>
> 9. The best lessons of our era. While all knowledge and
> culture should be preserved and stored for posterity, we also need
to
> distil the best lessons of our era, to be taught -- not sold -- to
the next
> generations. There should be a socially- guided, diversity-conscious
> selection, undertaken with the greatest sensitivity and wisdom. It
is
> not something that can be left to a profit-oriented education
system,
> to circulation- or ratings-driven media, or to consumption-pushing
> advertising.
>
> The information economy is growing at a phenomenal rate,
> often independently of the capacity of communities to absorb it, or
of
> governments to control it. This growth is driven mostly by global
> forces external to our own society but very much present within it.
>
> Left by themselves, these global forces will simply treat our
> country and our communities as fodder for their relentless drive in
> search of profit and growth. On the other hand, we want the
> balanced development and interaction of our agricultural, industrial
> and information sectors in a way that enhances the overall quality
of
> life in our communities. These are often orthogonal, if not opposite
> directions.
>
> To be able to attain that dynamic balance between these
> sectors so that they enhance each other and contribute to the
overall
> health and sustainability of our communities -- this is the
challenge of
> the information sector.
>
> file: lowcost.rtf
>
>
>
>