Re: Universal E-Mail
Andrew Spano (demguy@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 07:40:06 -0800
You wrote:
>
>At the end of this message is an article from today's San Jose Mercury
News
>about a recommendation to the Commerce Department that there be
universal e-mail
>in the USA. This seems right up our alley, so I thought you all would
be
>interested.
>
>My question to the group is this: do we wish to issue any kind of
press release
>about the recommendation? if yes, what are everyone's views?
>
Norm, I read some of the comments from other members and I can't help
but agree that the solution to the stated problem is frought with all
kinds of political pitfalls. However, in my opinion, the observation
of a widening gap between the haves and have-nots that can be partially
alleviated with universal E-Mail is valid. We should have a discussion
regarding the premise of the report and if we agree we should discuss
and promote alternate solutions. Andy
>If we do act, we should do so soon, so I would appreciate comments
within the
>next few days.
>
>Thanks, Norm
>
>=============
>Universal E-mail Access Urged
>
>National goal: Tax suggested to subsidize 'have-nots'
>
>Published: Nov. 22, 1995
>
>BY RORY J. O'CONNOR
>Mercury News Washington Bureau
>
>WASHINGTON -- Electronic mail is becoming so pervasive that universal
access for
>every American is ''imperative'' to the country's future and should be
made a
>national goal, according to a two-year study by the non-profit
> Rand institution.
>
>The study, released Tuesday, concludes that giving every citizen a
unique
>electronic mail address, and ensuring they have access to the
appropriate
>computers and communications lines, would have enormous social and
econom
>ic benefits. Among them: better education, greater participation in
government,
>better delivery of government services and more rapid development of
the
>''information superhighway,'' in which people who are thousands of m
>iles apart could communicate and trade data over computer lines.
>
>But the study's authors warned that the free market alone is unlikely
to provide
>such universal access. They recommended some government intervention
to regulate
>the development of the information superhighway and to subs
>idize e-mail use by poor and rural Americans.
>
>Under ideal circumstances, it would take about 10 years to ensure
universal
>e-mail access, at a public cost of around $1 billion per year, the
study
>projected. The money would cover the cost of a basic e-mail accounts
and
> computer equipment for people who couldn't afford it themselves and
might be
>delivered in the form of government vouchers paid for in part by a tax
on e-mail
>and communications providers.
>
>
>Information apartheid
>
>Yet the Rand group says the costs if the government and private
industry doesn't
>intervene could be even higher: The gap between information ''haves''
and ''have
>nots'' is growing, according to the study, even as the numb
>er of electronic mailboxes held by consumers has reached 6.7 million.
Without a
>concerted national effort, people who are now statistically unlikely
to use
>e-mail will increasingly fall victim to ''information apartheid,
>'' the authors said.
>
>E-mail is most likely to be used by wealthy, well-educated whites,
while those
>most at risk include people without college degrees, those with
below-average
>household incomes and ethnic minorities -- especially Hispanics,
> African-Americans and Native Americans.
>
>''In very important ways, they're being excluded from the fabric of
American
>life,'' said Tora K. Bikson, a Rand senior scientist and one of the
study's
>authors. ''We argue that this is not only feasible but vital to a he
>althy society in the information age. And it is not likely to happen
on its own,
>without a national effort.''
>
>As more and more people use computers with hookups to the Internet
and on-line
>services to communicate, millions of other people are being left
behind because
>of economic and societal differences that already have made t
>hem disconnected.
>
>The study bolsters the position of the Clinton administration, which
has
>consistently pushed for both universal access to the information
superhighway
>and federal involvement in the process.
>
>''One of the things that concerns us is a widening gap between the
affluent and
>the poor, and information technologies can widen that gap,'' said
Larry Irving,
>assistant secretary of Commerce. If the country doesn't act t
>o get the poor on-line, ''we're going to have increased social
problems and
>increased poverty.''
>
>
>
>Use limited
>
>But the study also shows that ethnic minorities are far less likely to
use
>e-mail than whites even when accounting for differences in income and
education
>levels. While researchers can't definitively account for that patt
>ern, it does suggest that members of those groups might not use e-mail
even were
>it subsidized.
>
>There is also a question of why the government should push for such
rapid
>universal access, given that most other mass communications
technologies have
>taken far longer to become diffused throughout the society. But Irvin
>g suggested the study at least pointed out the need to examine the
issue
>further.
>
>''It gives us some starting point for discussion at the state and
local level,''
>Irving said. ''And the debate hasn't even been held in Washington.''
>
>The study comes when congressional opponents of Clinton's technology
spending
>are agitating to ax most federal information highway funds, attacking
them as
>corporate welfare or unwarranted government intervention in the m
>arket.
>
>A pair of telecommunication reform bills now being considered by a
congressional
>conference committee include language providing for universal access.
But
>neither bill calls for vouchers or a tax; instead, they rely on ce
>rtain carriers like phone companies providing subsidized connections,
much as
>they do now for telephone service.
>
>But the Rand study maintains that subsidies will not work in the
competitive
>environment the legislation would create for telecommunications
services. That's
>because some providers would have to subsidize people while oth
>ers would not, depending on the kind of service the companies provide.
The
>companies that did subsidize some of its users would have to keep
their prices
>artificially high to cover the costs, putting themselves at a compe
>titive disadvantage to the companies that didn't.
>
>
>Information tax
>
>A tax, however, is unlikely to be a popular proposal in the current
climate on
>Capitol Hill. Likewise, government vouchers probably will not be
welcomed,
>coming when Congress wants to cut back on most social entitlement p
>rograms.
>
>Irving said the administration has never proposed either taxes or
vouchers to
>pay for universal access, and the job should be accomplished ''with a
minimum
>amount of federal resources.''
>
>Rand said the cost to the public treasury could amount to far less
than $1
>billion a year, however, in part because of corporate programs to
provide
>connections to underserved communities. AT&T, for instance, announced
a
>$150 million program last month to wire the nation's schools to the
Internet.
>
>The study also suggested computers could be provided to poor people
through
>computer recycling or the installation of ''pay phone''-style
computers in
>public places like libraries, and even on street corners. But it warne
>d that such public systems should not be treated as a substitute for
in-home
>access.
>
>Rand also said the government should take the role of developing or
assigning a
>unique e-mail address to every citizen, one that would be independent
of the
>company an individual used for e-mail service. That would both k
>ick-start universal access as well as ensure that companies could
produce e-mail
>directories, similar to phone books, so anyone could reach anyone
else.
>
>There are several possible problems on the road to universal service,
according
>to the report and computer experts. There is danger of overloading the
>infrastructure of computer networks, which at peak times already groan
> under the weight of use by less than 10 percent of the population.
There is the
>opposite danger as well of individuals finding their electronic
mailboxes
>overloaded with junk mail.
>
>----------------
>
>