EMFA: T1C2 - Universal E-mail General Comments 2

["E-Mail for All" <emfa@publicus.net>]

- - E-Mail for All - - - EMFA-EVENT - - - Universal Access - -


Universal E-mail - General Comments #2  

The following messages are included in this digest:
(Titles written by event host.)

1. Bob Frankston - Transitional Form, Codified Fears
2. Barbara Coe - Thanks, Dose of Reality
3. Nadine Mcdonnell - Why a Public Policy Goal?
4. Alfonso Gumucio Dagron - E-Mail for All - What for?
5. Lyno Sullivan - Tip of Iceberg
6. Keith Dickson - Safdar Essay Comments

--     --     --     --     --     --     --     --     --   
[1]

From:             Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
Subject:  Re: (Fwd) Re: EMFA: T1H2 - Notes, Universal
Date sent:        Wed, 6 May 1998 11:39 -0400


I should start out by saying that I'm a great believer in email
and have been an active user for the last 30 years as well as an
implementor (Lotus Express). But I'm concerned about naïve
enthusiasm that leads to ideas such as creating a bureaucracy to
support email.

The term "Universal Email" makes me think of the Universal
Service fund which has become an effective means of keeping
telephony a backwater of technology. During a period when the
price/performance of computing has improved by a factor of a
trillion over a telephone calls are little different from when
Strowger created his switching system. For example, a "foreign
exchange line" (FX) which used to require special wiring now need
only be an entry in an SS7 routing table, but it is still priced
at $50/month!

Email is already much less expensive than telephony because there
is a marketplace that is working hard to provide the necessary
infrastructure. Not only is the Internet itself competitively
priced, but there is also work being done to greatly reduce cost
of networking a home (or school) by using existing wiring or
wireless approaches.

Though email is exciting and valuable, it's still in its infancy.
Recognizing that any message (such as voice mail) is can be
represented as bits means that email subsumes many forms of
messages. 

Despite its power, email still lacks many of the capabilities we
are used in other messaging systems. For example, when the post
office delivers the (p)mail to the house, it keeps the envelope.
This allows the household to get mail addressed to any member
without informing the post office - even if it is the dog or a
role such as "parent". But email systems generally require that
each address be registered with a provider and don't allow for
further delivery.  Email also falls short of common tools such as
the answering machine which is in the right place and supports
delivery to a family rather than just individuals.

We've also stretched email for applications, such as discussion
groups, which can be better served with other tools. This
discussion being an example. We are told to limit ourselves to a
small subset of email capabilities as an accommodation to those
with older email capabilities. Will "Universal Email" access come
at the price of restricting us to the funded subset in order to
assure that those with funded email access are not at a
disadvantage?

Rather than focusing on email, the real value is in making access
to the Internet universally available. But it's already doing a
fine job of that. It is more important to remove the encumbrances
than create new ones for an imagined public good. Naïve
enthusiasm is likely to do damage. Funding access runs the danger
of propping up prices. 

A similar danger lies in supporting Internet Access to schools.
The real purpose may to fund necessary repairs such as simply
bringing AC power into the classroom. But the price we pay is to
make keep telecommunications a regulatory backwater and, as a
consequence make Internet access more difficult. Internet access
in schools is not sufficient - we need to assure that it is
affordable in homes too.

The well-deserved popularity of the Internet has brought it to
center-stage. Even after 30 years, we're just starting to
understand it. This popularity has engendered an interest in
policies that can frustrate the further growth subsidizing a
transitional form as well as policies that codify our fears in
law.

Bob Frankston http://www.mit.edu/~bobf

--     --     --     --     --     --     --     --     --   
[2]


Date sent:        Wed, 06 May 1998 06:44:46 -0700
From:             "Dr. Barbara Coe" <bcoe@du.edu>
Subject:          Re: EMFA: T1G1 - Universal E-mail General
Organization:     University of Denver

Thanks to all the respondents, but especially to Gary Wilson for
bringing us a dose of reality regarding computer and internet
use. Probably the best motivator for getting accustomed to the
computer, if available, would be to correspond via email to loved
ones far away -- for those who have them.  From this, then,
people may explore other uses.  But, we certainly need to ask the
questions about how the internet can be useful, how it will
satisfy perceived needs, if in fact it will, and not simply
assume that it is valuable.

Barbara Coe
Daystar Associates

--     --     --     --     --     --     --     --     --   
[3]

Date sent:        Wed, 6 May 1998 09:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:             nadine mcdonnell <dmcdonne@sfu.ca>
Subject:          T1Q3

Q3 - Should there be a public policy goal of universal e-mail    
(i.e. an e-mail address for everyone and the means to access it)?
Has any governmental body considered this? Should e-mail access
from homes or a nearby public location (see next theme regarding
Universal Internet) be guaranteed? ----------------- 


Why?  The assumption behind a call for universal access is that 
people need to communicate across distance and want to do it in 
a hurry. Email is expensive - it requires a computer as well as 
the means to pay for telephone and account charges.  For some, 
the expense is worth it because email is more efficient than 
other types of technology (notes, phone messages, faxes and so 
on) in ensuring contact.  It is faster in a world in which time 
is money.  A busy signal or a traffic jam costs a $200 an hour 
consultant a lot of money.  But this may not be a cost saving 
for many people.  If all of one's friends (or business contacts) 
are within reasonably walking distance, technology of any kind 
might not be needed. 

Perhaps the technology is good for its own sake.  But one must
wonder why. Take a policy on universal literacy (surely a
prerequisite to email use) - literacy only makes sense if there
is something to read.  Arguably our world is a better place
because of all of the writing - more democratic and so on.
Similar arguments are made in favour of email or the internet. 
But the reasons why most states, corporations and even people use
email are related to their costing of time and space - not
freedom.  Perhaps one reason email technology is good for its own
sake is that given that nation states and corporations seem to
have ALL signed on for globalization, then universal access to
the internet or similar global communication network seems only
fair.

Such fairness arguments could be:  as states (or perhaps their
elites) demand the benefits of access to the world stage then
they should open their countries to the goods and ideas of the
world.  OR as corporations require their employees to work
globally, then they should offer technology which would allow
these people to keep in touch with some 'home'.  There are many
other arguments but the assumptions would be similar, and related
to the imperative of 'globalization'.  Being in one place is
simply no longer an option.

A public policy goal of universal access to email is appropriate
given the apparent public interest in globalization - ensuring
that the whole world become one big happy *philadelphia*.

Nadine McDonnell  <dmcdonne@sfu.ca>
Phd Student, School of Communications
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia
CANADA 

--     --     --     --     --     --     --     --     --   
[4]


From: Alfonso Gumucio Dagron <agumucio@guate.net> 
Subject: E-MAIL FOR ALL: WHAT FOR? 
Date sent: Wed, 6 May 1998 13:03:27 -0500

It's not only a matter of technology, but culture
Some people get easily carried away with the fascination that new
technologies produce. "Universal e-mail" is presented as the new
cure. First, I find "universal" a very arrogant word.  Let's just
start with "worldwide e-mail" and even then we are being very
ambitious. Yes, it will be nice that everyone has access to
e-mail in our world.  But first things first, it will be even
better if everyone had access to safe water, to electricity, and
the luxury of telephone. Please, get into the shoes of 90% of
real people in the real world.  How many of them need e-mail
today and for what? Think about millions of rural people in
China, India or Brazil. What do they need e-mail for? Most of
them are illiterate in their own language, and of course all of
them are illiterate in English. It is not a problem of
technology, it is not even a problem of learning how to use the
mouse or the computer.  We can distribute millions of computers
and provide training along with it, but the main question
remains: what for? To communicate with whom? I am not saying we
will not find a use for it in the future. You will have to
realize that that the United States is not the center of the
universe, and that solutions that may be good for the United
States may not be as good for the rest of America (33 countries)
and the rest of the world. There are cultural differences that we
all have to keep in mind. New technologies can be adopted, but
only when they are useful for the community.  The whole concept
of e-mail is based in a very individual type of communication
which may clash with the collective approach that many
communities have in the third world. To understand this you have
to analyze what happened with radio and how it has become a tool
for communication at the community level. There are thousands of
community radios en the Third World that have been successful
because the community adopted them as a tool to promote their own
cultural values. People want to defend their cultures, they don't
want to be submerged by "globalization". We hope that e-mail and
Internet will not become another way to deprive people from their
culture, as it's happening with the globalization of cable and
satellite TV. I'll leave Internet aside for the moment, because
it is a very complex matter to discuss.  Let's just take "world
e-mail" or "e-mail for all" and think not about the constraints
in getting the equipment of creating the skills to read and
write, but about the real need for it. Each community of people,
rural or urban, has first to identify why e-mail could be of any
use. The whole purpose of e-mail is networking, so what benefits
can networking bring to a particular community in Bolivia or
Nigeria? Let's imagine a peasant in a village that is lucky
enough to have electricity and even a telephone line.  What is he
going to do with e-mail that he can't do with the telephone?
Let's not get to carried away with the fascination of technology.
World e-mail is not a synonym of democratization of
communication. I very much agree with Gary Wilson's point of
view, and also with Ronald Issacson. There are more questions
than answers.  Maybe we should start by formulating the right
questions, trying to be more sensitive and informed about what is
the situation of the majority of people in the world, before
warming up our "universal" guns. I would love to hear more about
"community access" before being uplifted to the universe.

Alfonso Gumucio Dagron
The Center for Development Communication
5a Avenida 19-06, Zona 14
Guatemala City - GUATEMALA
agumucio@guate.net 

--     --     --     --     --     --     --     --     --   
[5]

Date sent:        Wed, 06 May 1998 09:14:25 -0500
To:               "E-Mail for All" <emfa@publicus.net>
From:             Lyno Sullivan <lynosull@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject:          Universal Email is the Tip of the Iceberg

I view universal email as the tip of the iceberg.  We must be
wary that the tip of the iceberg, devoid of the berg, looks like
a manageable hunk of ice.  With the attached article, I bring you
my view of the iceberg.  I also include significant discussion of
the tip: universal, cradle to grave, email with perpetual
archives.  To stretch the analogy, I believe the "We, the People"
are, precariously, in somewhat the same position as the Titanic
relative to the iceberg.

My motivation for the last few years and for writing the attached
article is my extreme feeling of the loss of Place in civilized
human Life.  A great ennui set in years ago when I realized the
full extent of the loss and when I observed the systems that,
left unchecked, would grind away the last semblance of Place.  As
we scurry around to get wired up it is important to be mindful
that we must hang on to Place.

It is important that we not create systems that are divisive.  I
believe that when each member of a family lives alone in their
room and connects, alone, to their ISP that we are tampering with
something fundamental--we are near to the end of the road of
separation.  I believe that we first must attend to the matter of
Place.  I am not a neo-Luddite.  I believe that appropriate
technology has a great role in Life.  I propose that we attend to
this matter by deploying systems that affirm the sense of
Place--Place within Family and Family within Community.

Implementing systems that understand Place is an important
consideration. Implementing network topologies that align with
geographic space is a step towards the goal of reclaiming Place
in our lives.  But it is barely a beginning.  Creating systems
that empower local communities to control their sense of Place is
vital work but only the beginning.  If we fail to create systems
that preserve our sense of Place, I worry that our great
grandchildren will suffer excessively under a repressive class
society. Once every person is made to stand alone, who can find
the strength to fight.  We must not deploy systems that encourage
our separateness.  The mere presence of universal email is a
small step in the right direction but does little, by itself, to
restore the sense of belonging to a Place.  It could just as
easily be turned so that every person's Place is somewhere in the
digital world rather than where it belongs, with family and
church and community.

----------- ARTICLE ------------ 
May 5, 1998 
To: "MN Telecom & Information Industry Issues"
<mn-iii@tc.umn.edu> Fr: "Lyno Sullivan"
<lynosull@maroon.tc.umn.edu> 
Re: Local Community Digital Network (LCDN): Features and 
Strategies

Please request the full text of the article from the author at:  

     lynosull@maroon.tc.umn.edu


--     --     --     --     --     --     --     --     --   
[6]

From: "Dixon, Keith" <Keith.Dixon@nl.origin-it.com>
Subject: RE: EMFA: T1E1 -  Free E-mail  Services, Future Factors
Date sent:        Wed, 6 May 1998 10:20:24 +0200

Mr. Safdar's essay was very thought provoking, but unfortunately
rather parochial in that it has a very heavy US orientation. I
wonder if the concept of E-mail for All is worth anything. My
arguments are as follows.

1) Despite being a messaging professional I can count on the
fingers of two hands the number of personal e-mail messages I
have sent (and on one hand where I had no option). As far as I
know none of my family has an e-mail address, most friends only
have an office address.

2) Access to E-mail implies access to the telephone. "E-mail For
All" therfore means "Telephones for All" - this is a dream
outside the US, especially if you pay for your local calls. Why
would I do anything off-line through e-mail when I can call?

3) E-mail is not free, the advertisers pay. Would you accept
E-mail if it had cigarette advertisements in the headers. What
about breast milk substitutes being advertised in the third
world?

4) It is dangerous to compare e-mail to the postal system - the
billing model is different. We have snail-mail for all because
the sender pays and there is no concept of prior registration. We
only agreed the addressing conventions and the PTT's agreed to
cooperate

Despite all this, I do feel that Web Access for all would be a
GOOD THING. There is a lot of useful information out there -- and
that information can empower in a way that e-mail can't. You
could conceive of browsers in several public places, easily
accessed and driven by pointing at the screen rather than by
mouse. A supermarket could have the browser's pointing to the
chain's "offer of the month" and block access to the competition,
a bar could offer free access, but you pay for printing pages on
the color printer to take home with you.

Sorry, E-mail is the first app, not the killer app. It won't
build communities nor conquer evil. The Internet in general may
do those things - it will certainly change the way we do business
- but we must be prepared to pay for those benefits.


Keith Dixon
Steltlopen 17
5683 LW  BEST
The Netherlands
mailto:kdixon@iaehv.nl

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Markle Foundation's E-Mail for All Universal Access Event
 WWW/Un/Subscribe Info: http://www.iaginteractive.com/emfa
 EMFA-EVENT posts may be forwarded via e-mail, for details
 on other uses or for general comments:  emfa@publicus.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -