report on universal email

Phil Klein most at wolfenet.com
Fri Mar 6 07:35:50 PST 1998 

The article below struck me as relevant for us all (--if you look past their
self-promotion).
--phil klein
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Clift <clift at publicus.net>
To: COMMUNET at LIST.UVM.EDU <COMMUNET at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 2:37 PM
Subject: Report - Social Venture Capital for Universal Electronic


>  E-MAIL FOR ALL - http://www.iaginteractive.com/emfa
>_______________________________________________________
>
>  Social Venture Capital for Universal Electronic
>        Communications - A Conference Report
>
>                 *Now Available Online*
>               Executive Summary Enclosed
>
>Participants in a recent conference sponsored by the Markle
>Foundation in association with the Aspen Institute brought
>a wealth of insights to strategies for creating universal
>access to e-mail and leveraging universal electronic
>communications for broader social benefit.
>
>The conference, "Social Venture Capital for Universal
>Electronic Communications," explored electronic
>communication and the potential consequences, both positive
>and negative, of new information technologies becoming more
>and more integrated into the fabric of the economy and
>society.
>
>Conference participants included senior corporate and
>public policy leaders such as Reed Hunt, former chairman of
>the FCC, Ira Magaziner, senior advisor to the President,
>W. Bowman Cutter, managing director, E.M. Warburg, Pincus
>and Company, Inc, Al Sikes, president, Hearst New Media and
>Technology, and Louis Rosetto, CEO, Wired.
>
>Copies of this report are now available either
>electronically or in print; please call Jennifer Bertsch
>(212/268-1443) or send e-mail to jenbertsch at aol.com for
>print copies.
>
>The report is available online from:
>
>      http://www.iaginteractive.com/emfa
>
>The E-MAIL FOR ALL outreach campaign is an integral part of
>the Markle Foundation's work to encourage the use of new
>communications technologies for socially beneficial
>purposes.
>
>
>Enclosed is the Executive Summary:
>
>                      Social Venture Capital
>                     for Universal Electronic
>                          Communications
>
>                         Executive Summary
>
>At a time of fierce competition in telecommunications and computers,
>new technologies are being introduced at breakneck speed and market
>forces are popularizing the use of digital communications in
>unprecedented ways. In this turbulent, market-driven environment, the
>meaning of the "public interest" in media has become more complex.
>This has promoted many foundations to consider anew the roles they can
>best play in their grants, contracts, and program-related investments.
>
>
>To help assess this challenge, The John and Mary R. Markle Foundation
>engaged the Aspen Institute's Communications and Society Program to
>convene twenty-five leaders and experts from the worlds of
>telecommunications, television, computer technology, government,
>journalism, economics, and the social sciences at a conference at Rye
>Brook, New York, on April 24-25, 1997. A key goal was to identify
>constructive projects and strategic directions that the Markle
>Foundation might pursue as part of its ongoing work to leverage social
>benefits from the new telecommunications media.
>
>The Value Of Universal E-Mail
>
>A central topic of discussion was whether the Markle Foundation should
>play a more aggressive role in fostering universal access to e-mail.
>In the early 1990s, the Markle Foundation commissioned the RAND
>organization to explore the advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility
>of universal e-mail. RAND's 1995 report, Universal Access to E-Mail:
>Feasibility and Societal Implications, by Robert H. Anderson et al.,
>found that e-mail is quite attractive, especially compared to other
>interactive technologies, because it is fairly inexpensive and easy to
>use, its benefits are fairly easy to discern, and it is highly
>accessible to new users.
>
>But given the rapid proliferation of e-mail without the help of
>government policy or foundations, why should anything be done to
>foster universal access to e-mail? Three important answers, according
>to RAND researchers, are:
>
>1. In spite of the growth of these e-mail systems, the majority of
>   U.S. residents probably will continue to lack access to e-mail
>   well into the next century without societal intervention;
>
>2. Many citizens do not participate in the dialogue that forms the
>   basis for the U.S. democratic process; and
>
>3. Some citizens, such as inner-city minorities and the rural poor,
>   are relatively disenfranchised and constitute groups that will be
>   the last to be reached by commercial e-mail systems.
>
>Social Goals And The Marketplace
>
>Much of the impetus for universal access to electronic communications,
>whether it is e-mail or something greater, is fueled by the hope that
>new technologies could help reduce growing socio-economic divisions in
>American society. Many participants questioned this assumption,
>suggesting that the new media are not going to become "the solution"
>to social problems that have much larger, more complex origins.
>
>Other suggested that the current "have nots" would simply become "have
>laters". As prices decline, more Americans will be able to afford
>access to the Internet and its many applications, and thus public
>policy should not intervene to help assure wider access. But this
>viewpoint was challenged by some participants as unfounded. Internet
>usage, however rapid at the moment, is not penetrating to the "have
>nots." Given the rapid pace of technological innovation, a whole class
>of Americans may be permanently "left behind," unable to use the
>technologies for personal or occupational gain.
>
>The Dilemmas Of Universal Access
>
>The most difficult problem may lie not in the principle of universal
>access to e-mail, but in how to craft policies that will be effective
>at reducing social inequities while not distorting competitive
>markets. There was general agreement among participants that
>cross-subsidies are not the most appropriate way to foster universal
>access.
>
>"Access" may not be the core challenge, in any case, since many of the
>people who would be targeted by an access initiative cannot read or
>write, or cannot do so very well. This raises interesting issues of
>whether literacy education should precede any access initiatives, and
>be utterly independent of them, or whether e-mail and other Internet
>practices can help develop the "habits of the mind" that contribute to
>literacy.
>
>Access, as historically understood in the context of telephony and
>broadcast regulation, may itself be the wrong concept. After all, what
>medium, device, or services are you going to subsidize? For what
>purposes? And what are the most efficient ways to provide that
>subsidy, given the pace of technological change? The very concept of
>"access" may be too narrow a way of talking about the promise of
>universal service. A more important concept may be the process by
>which people learn how to use the technology and become part of an
>online community. The real access issue, according to one participant,
>is not access to the bits, which will be cheaper, faster, and better
>as time goes on. Rather, it will be access to the modes of
>organization by which you can be part of something, whether it is
>groups of doctors or people in a poor community.
>
>Developing New Strategies
>
>FCC chairman Reed Hundt delivered a luncheon address, "Toward a Grand
>Unified Theory of the Public Interest in the Networked Society," in
>which he conceded that "the public interest," both as a legal
>obligation and a moral expectation, was in a period of considerable
>transition. While a "grand unified theory" is not currently possible,
>he said, there remains a need to define the public interest in some
>fashion because there are larger values that the marketplace alone
>cannot or will not meet.
>
>With regard to the future of telephony, Hundt said the overarching
>goal should be to provide basic affordable service for all Americans.
>As far as commercial television, Hundt disputed the claim by
>broadcasters that the public interest is served simply by the
>existence of a viable broadcasting business. Public interest
>obligations are broader, he argued, citing a list of eight goals that
>included children's educational programming, public service
>announcements, public television, new means of program delivery and
>media de-concentration.
>
>With respect to the Internet, Hundt said that educators consider the
>FCC's initiative in providing some $2.25 billion to help connect
>classrooms and libraries to the Internet "the most important
>government education initiative since the G.I. Bill."
>
>Hundt enumerated several specific projects that foundations should
>entertain and which many foundations, including the Markle Foundation,
>already have: the funding of independent policy analysis, training
>cyber-policy analysts; assisting advocacy groups representing Internet
>users; exploring the need for non-commercial content; funding
>clearinghouses on policy, such as universal service; and exploring
>ways to wire the unwired (e.g., e-mail through libraries).
>
>There was a broad consensus among conference participants that
>competitive markets will popularize new computer networking
>technologies and stimulate new uses. If true, the most important tasks
>may be to identify market failures and help develop the "social goods"
>in the new digital culture that the marketplace is not likely to
>provide. Participants put forward a number of additional ideas for how
>the Markle Foundation could play a constructive role in improving the
>digital culture:
>
>1. Bridge the gap between the social benefit of a new technology and
>   its popular appeal.
>
>2. Give rural health care clinics access to medical specialists.
>
>3. Support the "human infrastructure" to help people get and stay
>   online.
>
>4. Subsidize technology in public places.
>
>5. Facilitate corporate initiatives with public interest benefits.
>
>6. Develop new ways to assess market failure.
>
>7. Get beyond market research and conduct more diagnostic,
>   longitudinal research.
>
>8. Help organize new consumer constituencies to assert their
>   interests in public policy.
>
>Conclusion
>
>While no clear consensus resulted about future strategies for social
>venture capital, the discussions did underscore the increasing
>importance of "social capital" in the use of new electronic
>technologies. It is hoped that future sessions can develop a better
>understanding of how technology, social practices, and public policy
>interrelate in the dynamic, fast-changing marketplace.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>  Steven Clift - Public Strategies for the Online World
>      3454 Fremont Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55408 USA
>      T: +1.612.822.8667(NEW) E: clift at publicus.net
>
>  Democracies Online - http://www.e-democracy.org/do
>  Universal E-mail - http://www.iaginteractive.com/emfa
>  Consulting and Home Page - http://www.publicus.net
> -------------------------------------------------------
>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END

More information about the scn mailing list