|
 |
|
|||||
Bridging the Digital Divide: Internet Access in Central and Eastern Europe
The Internet offers the promise of an information society in which virtually unlimited quantities of information are globally available; in which any individual can be an electronic Guttenberg, publishing as well as reading; in which the patterns of civil society are redrawn and borders are rendered meaningless as people build virtual communities for work, learning and socializing across traditional boundaries of time and place.
Realizing this vision of a global, decentralized, user-controlled medium poses many challenges, but among the most fundamental of these is the challenge of affordable access. If the Internet is available to only a few, its democratizing potential will never be achieved. (Its economic impact will be limited as well.) Policymakers, both at the national and international levels, together with service providers and other entities operating the Internet as well as non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") representing the public interest have a shared obligation to seek ways to achieve the widespread use of the Internet.
This is a challenge faced around the world. In every region, progress is being made as governments, commercial entities, non-profits and grant-making bodies strive to expand Internet connectivity. However, the Internet is far from achieving its potential reach and impact, and there are concerns that the "digital divide" is growing as the pace of change accelerates. Those who support the Internet's power as a medium uniquely suited to building open societies must study what can be done to make Internet access widely available and affordable. This report focuses specifically on Central and Eastern Europe ("CEE"). [ 1 ] Similar studies should be done in other regions.
Access to the Internet, for all its unique qualities, has been for most of its short history largely dependent upon more traditional communications services, specifically traditional telephone service. Consequently, for most people in most countries, access to the Internet can be no better than access to basic telecommunications services. And the overwhelming majority of people in the world lack access to basic telephone service. [ 2 ] Thus, the gap between the haves and the have nots overshadows our consideration of Internet policy as it does so many other issues.
In terms of Internet access, there are two main drivers of potential change, one largely political in nature and one largely technological. Politically, the concept of universal service has become a widely shared goal of national and international telecommunications policy. Technologically, ongoing rapid developments in alternatives to wireline dial-up access offer the potential of spanning geographic barriers and opening up access to both basic telecommunications services and the Internet at reduced costs.
Based upon the country reports that follow, certain overarching conclusions can be drawn about Internet access in Central and Eastern Europe:
III. Universal Service / Universal Access
A. The Danger of the Digital Divide: "Haves" and "Have-Nots" in the Information Society
Despite the Internet's democratizing potential, it has been recognized from the outset of the digital revolution that there is a very real danger that the world will be divided into the "information rich" and the "information poor." The United Nations Development Programme ("UNDP") focused on the risk of marginalization in its 1999 Human Development Report, noting that the "Internet poses severe problems of access and exclusion." [ 3 ] With communications technologies playing increasingly vital roles in economic development, education, health care and governance, the exclusion of those who are poor, illiterate, rural or non-English speaking has broad ramifications.
The UNDP concern echoed earlier warnings. In April 1997, the UN's Administrative Committee on Coordination stated:
"We are profoundly concerned at the deepening maldistribution of access, resources and opportunities in the information and communication field. The information and technology gap and related inequities between industrialized and developing nations are widening: a new type of poverty -- information poverty -- looms." [ 4 ]
In a similar vein, a 1994 report to the European Council warned:
"The main risk lies in the creation of a two-tier society of have and have-nots, in which only a part of the population has access to the new technology, is comfortable using it and can fully enjoy its benefits. There is a danger that individuals will reject the new information culture and its instruments." [ 5 ]
The Urban-Rural Divide
The digital divide exists not only between countries and regions but also within most countries, in the form of a wide disparity between urban and rural inhabitants. [ 6 ] For instance, in 1995, the number of main telephone lines per 100 residents in urban Russia was 20, while the corresponding figure for rural areas was a mere 8. This divide appears throughout the CEE region: In Georgia, there were 18 main telephone lines for every 100 urban inhabitants, and 3 per 100 rural inhabitants; in Ukraine, the split was 21 versus 7; in Moldova, 23 versus 6; in Slovakia, 28 versus 11; in Albania, 3 versus .2. [ 7 ]
Participation in the Information Economy without Universal Service
It should be noted that universal service is not the sole determinant "success" in the information age. A case in point is India which, although far from having fulfilled its universal service obligations, has become the world's second largest software manufacturer, largely by virtue of the government's pushing for the availability of networked computers in schools and institutions of higher learning, and through the subsequent proliferation of private computer-training colleges operating on government subsidies.
B. Sources of the Universal Service Obligation
Increasingly through most of this century, access to telecommunications has come to be recognized as critical to commerce, public safety, governance, and overall human development. [ 8 ] Accordingly, nations have long defined universal access to telephone service as a public policy goal, along with transportation, postal delivery, electrical service and health care, among other services. In the United States, the universal service goal was written into federal telecommunications law in 1934. In Europe, the government-owned telephone companies were pressed, to greater or lesser degrees, to extend service to all regions, while monopoly providers were similarly bound at least in theory by a "social contract" with the political and regulatory institutions that sustained their monopoly position. Until recently, however, the details of the obligation were not clearly articulated, and reality in many countries has fallen far short of aspiration. [ 9 ]
Access to telecommunications service was placed squarely on the international agenda by the 1984 report of the Independent Commission for Worldwide Telecommunications Development, entitled The Missing Link. The "Maitland Report," as it is commonly known, established the objective that "by the early part of the next century virtually the whole of mankind should be brought within easy reach of a telephone." While the report did not state any explicit targets, this goal soon came to be quantified as 1 telephone per 100 people (i.e., a teledensity of 1). China achieved this goal in 1993, and India in 1994, but at least 800 million people still live in countries falling short of even that modest goal.
The universal service obligation also has its roots in fundamental human rights principles. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that everyone had the right to freedom of expression and the right to "receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (emphasis added). Likewise, Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms recognizes and protects the right to communicate and to access information. [ 10 ] To give the rights guaranteed by these articles real meaning, individuals must have some claim to access basic communication and information services. In 1982, the Council of Europe drew an explicit connection between freedom of expression and access: In the "Declaration on the Freedom of Expression and Information," the Committee of Ministers declared that they would seek to achieve "the availability and access on reasonable terms to adequate facilities for the domestic and international transmission and dissemination of information and ideas." [ 11 ]
In the Internet age, the economic implications of universal service are magnified. The UNDP's Human Development Report for 1999 points out that it takes 5 days and costs $75 to courier a 40-page document from Madagascar to Cote D'Ivoire and that it takes half an hour and costs $45 for the same document to be faxed between the same two points. However, email costs less than 20 cents and takes only 2 minutes to transmit the 40-page document from Madagascar to any other point in the world, not to mention the ability to transmit the document to hundreds of other points at no additional cost. Transitional economies that need to compete with the developed world -- as is particularly true of the CEE countries hoping to join the EU -- need to take advantage of the Internet as an economic equalizer.
Universal Service/Access in Europe
In Europe, and elsewhere around the world, the concern about a digital divide has translated into public policy:
"In the emerging information society more and more people -- in private life and at work -- depend on modern communications. To be able to communicate and interact whether by telephone, fax, e-mail or electronic media is a crucial and decisive factor for every citizen and business. The policy of the European Commission towards the information society has from the beginning taken into account the need to avoid a 'two-tier-society,' divided between those who have access to the new possibilities and are comfortable using them and those who are excluded from fully enjoying their benefits." [ 12 ]
The European Commission stated the issue as follows in a 1997 communication:
"In order to reap both the economic and social benefits of technological progress and to improve people's quality of life, the Information Society must be based on the principles of equal opportunities, participation and integration of all. This can only happen if everybody has access to at least a basic set of the new services and applications offered by the Information Society." [ 13 ]
As the law of the European Union has evolved, it has come to incorporate the concept of universal service. [ 14 ] As now defined in EU Directives, the universal service obligation requires Member States to ensure that all persons reasonably requesting it can obtain a connection to the fixed public telephone network at an affordable price. [ 15 ]
The universal service obligation takes on special importance in the age of liberalization (i.e., privatization and competition). [ 16 ] The Commission, the Council, the Parliament, and the key Committees "have all recognised that liberalisation goes hand in hand with parallel action to create a harmonized regulatory framework which secures the delivery of universal service." [ 17 ]
Yet the EU to date has taken little action to enforce the obligation. The first monitoring report found a gradual but continuing improvement in service levels, price and quality. But the EU has not given the attention to the digital divide that has been seen, for example, in the United States, where for three years running the federal government has issued reports expressing concern and seeking policy solutions to address the digital divide. [ 18 ]
As the countries of CEE move towards membership in the European Union, they are required to commit to universal service. Those seeking entry to the EU have begun (and in many cases completed) the process of incorporating the obligation in their national laws, but so far the details of implementing the policy have not been defined.
Defining Universal Service
Revisiting the 1984 Maitland report at the beginning of the 21st century raises two questions. First, is it possible to have a common qualitative and quantitative definition of universal service for all nations and regions of the world? Second, should the concept be expanded beyond the telephone to include access to the Internet?
A distinction is sometimes drawn between universal service, the object of which has come to be equated with a telephone in every household, and universal access, defined as the goal that everyone should be within "reasonable distance" of a telephone. [ 19 ] The terms themselves are somewhat arbitrary, but the distinction reflects the concerns of developing countries where the goal of private telephone service in every household seems impossible in the foreseeable future. The distinction has policy implications, for universal access implies a greater focus on community-based solutions. [ 20 ] The distinction is particularly relevant to the Internet. The traditional focus on telephones in the home does not account for the fact that many people get access to the Internet at work, at schools and universities, or at public libraries. In most countries, it seems that public policy is based on a mix of promoting individual service in homes while increasing access in schools, public libraries, and telecommunications centers.
There is also a distinction (not always clearly drawn) between access and functional availability. Even in a country with an extensive infrastructure (i.e., where basic wiring reaches every neighborhood or block), the service may not be affordable. This may be exacerbated by the Internet, since the computer equipment needed to take advantage of it remains relatively expensive, certainly more expensive than a telephone. The UNDP Human Development Report for 1999 notes that a computer would cost the average Bangladeshi the equivalent of eight years' wages, while the average American can buy a similar machine for a month's salary.
So far, a common quantitative definition of universal service has not emerged, even within the European context. [ 21 ] The EU Voice Telephony Directive, recognizing that the concept must evolve to keep pace with advances in technology, market developments, and changes in user demand, defines universal service as a "minimum set of services of specified quality which is available to all users independent of their geographic location and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an affordable price." [ 22 ] While the EU has recognized that affordability is crucial to extension of telecommunications to every citizen, what is "affordable" is a matter to be determined at the national level.
Various countries have developed their own definitions of universal service. [ 23 ] One example of the complexity of specifically defining universal service even at the national level can be found in the United States. The Federal Communications Act adopted in 1934 declared that it was the national policy "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." Over the years, the Federal Communications Commission and state regulatory bodies worked to give meaning to this goal, largely through the allocation of revenues from long distance to local carriers providing service in rural areas. In 1996, the Communications Act was amended. Universal service was defined then as "an evolving level of telecommunications services that the [Federal Communications] Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services." Implementing the Commission's decision constitutes a major regulatory undertaking. [ 24 ]
However, as to the second question, Europe has clearly expanded the definition of universal service to include the "provision of voice telephony service via a fixed connection which will also allow a fax and a modem to operate." [ 25 ] This decision was codified in article 5 of the Voice Telephony Directive of 1998, under which Member States are required to ensure that all reasonable requests for connection are met and that the connection provided "shall be capable of allowing users to make and receive national and international calls, supporting speech, facsimile, and/or data communications." [ 26 ] The preamble to the Directive states that "fixed public telephone network infrastructure newly installed after 1 January 1998 should be of a quality which supports, in addition to speech, data communications at rates suitable for access to online information services." In a 1998 report, the European Commission further described universal service as:
"guaranteeing citizens access at an affordable price to a voice telephony service over a line allowing them to use a fax or hook up a computer. The current definition therefore already allows users to participate in the information society by providing a connection which allows access to on-line services, for example, via the Internet." [ 27 ]
The goal is relevant, of course, only for those who have a computer and a subscription with an Internet service provider. Moreover, as noted, the definition of "affordability" has been left to local decisionmaking.
C. Policies That Promote Universal Service
Realizing the promise of universal service depends on a variety of factors. Obviously, the building of core telecommunications infrastructures that will allow users access to the Internet requires significant financial investment. The demands range from the establishment of transmission networks to the actual acquisition of computers. A country's economic health plays a very important role in the development of its digital infrastructure.
Nevertheless, progressive public policies, beginning with the removal of state monopolies on telecommunication structures, government support, targeted international development efforts, and creative non-governmental initiatives, can promote more widespread and equitable access. As UNESCO has concluded, "The major problems are posed not by the technologies as such, which can in general be acquired and adapted if appropriate resources are mobilized, but rather by political, social, organizational and ethical issues involved." [ 28 ] Likewise, the European Commission stated the issue as follows in a 1997 communication:
"Access has different dimensions: availability, continuity, affordability, accessibility, and awareness. How well these dimensions are dealt with will tilt the balance towards an inclusive or exclusive society. Public policies can make the difference." [ 29 ]
Participants at a conference sponsored by the Parliamentary Human Rights Foundation (PHRF) in Brussels in November 1996, stressed the same point:
"Government and the industry have a shared responsibility in building the Global Information Infrastructure ("GII"), and in ensuring as wide an access as possible to its services." [ 30 ]
The Open Internet Policy Principles adopted at the conference serve as a framework for defining the policies that can promote Internet access.
Competition and Regulatory Policy
The PHRF Principles stress the importance of competition: "Competition, open systems and interoperability are the best way to enlarge access."
In reference to market structures, the principles further stated:
A strong cautionary note must be sounded, however. Open and competitive markets make a necessary but not always sufficient contribution to securing the public interest objectives of universal access, affordable prices, pluralism and diversity. [ 32 ] Indeed, in the absence of countervailing regulation, liberalisation could worsen the situation. Tariff "re-balancing" in favor of high volume and long distance users could benefit businesses and urban customers, while resulting in increases to residential and rural customers. The focus of investment may also be on business-oriented services. For these reasons, the EU should adopt a more focused and specific program, both within Western Europe and for the new members entering the Union from CEE. [ 33 ]
Affordability: the Per-Minute versus Flat-rate Debate
One key element not fully spelled out in EU directives and pronouncements on universal service is price. Yet the goal of universal service, however strongly affirmed, may be meaningless if the cost of access is prohibitive. The common practice throughout Europe of per-minute billing for local calls is a major barrier to Internet access. [ 34 ] (This is an issue little appreciated in North America, where local dial-up calls to ISPs are charged at a single flat-rate.) In January, 1999, Internet users in the Czech Republic launched a boycott of proposed telephone price increases. [ 35 ] In June 1999, Internet users in fifteen European countries launched a protest to demand fairer telecommunications charges. [ 36 ] If Internet users in the relatively wealthier economies of Northern and Western Europe, such as Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, have reason to protest per-minute meterage, there is little doubt that the consequences of such billing are grave in the transitional economies of Central and Eastern Europe.
The boycott called for :
As part of a policy to promote affordability and accessibility, the PHRF Conference and others have encouraged providing Internet access to schools, libraries and other public institutions, subsidized as necessary. In Western Europe, Portugal and Belgium have notable programs to promote Internet access through schools, with various funding mechanisms. [ 37 ] In CEE, Hungary, for example, has had a very ambitious policy of wiring the schools.
In addition to schools and libraries, public Post and Telegraph Offices (PTOs), which have traditionally provided telephone booths and long-distance calling facilities, could be redesigned to include public Internet access. Telecenters are being experimented with in different parts of the world as a way to address access issues in those countries with limited infrastructures. Estonia, for example, has made tremendous strides in providing public Internet access points throughout the country, even on remote islands in the Baltic Sea. [ 38 ]
Cybercafes -- commercial establishments, often a bar or restaurant, which allow their patrons access to the Internet for a fee -- have the potential to serve as a place for Internet access. However, in most cases, as they have actually developed, cyber-cafes have not constituted a realistic means of providing Internet access to the broader public. [ 39 ] In most developing and transitional economies around the world, fees charged by cybercafes are pegged at "hard-currency" rates, apparently reflecting the assumption that most of the users are overseas visitors; few cybercafes seem to cater to the median citizenry. For instance, a Kiev cybercafe listed on www.cybercafe.kiev.ua charges $6.50/hour, an amount that bars a large part of the local population. Nonetheless, cybercafes may be a viable option, and governments should take a hands-off approach, eschewing content and identification requirements.
Overseas Development Assistance
International organizations including the IMF, the European Union, and the IRDB are investing considerable sums in infrastructure development, particularly in the Balkans but also in the CEE region generally. It is not clear, however, that adherence to universal service principles has been a criterion of their funding decisions. Greater attention needs to be given to ensuring that public and affordable individual access is a core goal of international development efforts. The PHRF principles state:
"Overseas development assistance programs should strive to promote full access to the Internet. Such programs should include support for the development of public policy environments consistent with these Open Internet Policy Principles, and adequate resources for training and ongoing support."
Reconstruction of the war-ravaged regions of the former Yugoslavia demands a special commitment and presents special opportunities to leapfrog into the information age. More PCs, servers, and international lines are needed. One intermediate-term strategy would be to focus on NGOs, schools and libraries. There are also opportunities for private sector technology firms in the West to contribute.
Alternative Delivery Mechanisms
Wireless technologies for Internet access offer special promise for fulfilling the universal service obligation. The group of technologies that have now emerged under the generic umbrella of "wireless local loop" (WLL) may be particularly successful. WLL's advantages over fixed-line installment in first-time user networks include cost: Given that up to 50% of the initial investment costs of laying fixed-lines in urban areas is attributed to the segment connecting the subscriber to the exchange account, and that this cost is often higher in rural areas, and given that this initial cost translates into high maintenance expenses, WLL offers a less expensive alternative and one that avoids many logistical hurdles, from municipal permission to natural features such as mountains and rivers. [ 40 ]
Moreover, the easy installment process for WLL makes it easier for operators to begin earning returns on investments; the ratio of fixed to incremental costs of WLL is lower than that of fixed-line networks, i.e., adding new subscribers to a local loop costs relatively little. Maintenance of WLL is easier than fixed-line as copper wire is more prone to failure and because fault points are easier to locate in WLL than in hard-wired networks.
Methodology -- A Few Notes
Rapid change is one of the defining characteristics of both the CEE region and the Internet. Therefore, this report was prepared under a double handicap: the political, legal, social and economic milieu of each of the countries in the region is changing rapidly, while the Internet globally is changing just as rapidly. Therefore, this report can be no more than a snapshot of the situation as of mid-1999. To compound the difficulty of preparing this report, some of the statistics and data used are relatively old, due in part to our desire to present consistent teledensity figures for all countries in the region.
Unless otherwise noted, data for phone lines and teledensity are drawn from the World Telecommunication Development Report: Universal Access of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Published in 1998, it contains 1996 estimates. Unless otherwise noted, all data for population and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) are drawn from The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1999, published by World Almanac Books/Primedia in 1998. Population figures are mid-1998 estimates; GDP figures, unless otherwise noted, are 1996 estimates. Tragically, some countries in the CEE region are suffering declining GDP. Populations are also fluctuating, due to the disruptions of war and economic instability. As a result, all of the figures expressed in per capita terms are subject to a margin of error.
Unless otherwise noted, numbers of Internet hosts are drawn from the RIPE Region Hostcount (March 18, 1999), http://www.ripe.net/statistics/hostcount.html. Hostcounts have a superficial objectivity in that they reflect automated counts of Web sites by country code. They are, however, not an accurate reflection of Internet activity since many .net, .com. and .org address reflect content from outside the United States. Finally, it should be noted that estimates of Internet users vary widely and are notoriously unverifiable. Where a range of figures was available, we quoted the range.
The report does not have country reports on the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania); they have been the focus of a separate OSI project.
For more up-to-date data, check the following resources:
1. This report grew out of and is to some extent a follow-up to the conference on "The Outlook for Freedom, Privacy and Civil Society on the Internet in Central and Eastern Europe," organized by the Global Internet Liberty Campaign and sponsored by the Open Society Institute, held in Budapest in September 1998.
2. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report -- 1999 ("UNDP Report"), http://www.undp.org/hdro/report.html
3. UNDP Report, supra, note 2.
4. ACC, Statement on Universal Access to Basic Communication and Information Services, http://www.itu.int/acc/rtc/acc-rep.htm
5. Members of the High-Level Group on the Information Society, Europe and the global information society: Recommendations to the European Council (CD-84-94-290-C).
6. In the United States, where universal service has been an explicit goal of federal telecommunications policy for over sixty years, rural teledensity is actually slightly higher than in poor urban areas.
7. International Telecommunications Union, World Telecommunication Development Report 1998 -- Universal Service ("ITU Report").
8. See chapter 2, UNDP Report, supra, note 2; ITU Report, supra, note 7.
9. See The Future of Universal Service in Telecommunications in Europe, report to DG XIII of the European Commission, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/promo/pubs/uniserv/UniServ.html
10. All but two of the counties covered in this report are members of the Council of Europe and signatories of the ECHR; the exceptions are Belarus and Yugoslavia, though the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" which, together with Serbia, makes up contemporary Yugoslavia, is a member of the COE and a party to the ECHR.
11. http://www.coe.fr/cm/ta/decl/1982/82dec1.htm
12. DG XIII, Communication, Universal Service for Telecommunications in the Perspective of a Fully Liberalised Environment: An Essential Element of the Information Society, COM(96) 73, 13 March 1996, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/legreg/9673.html ("DG XIII Universal Service Communication").
13. DG V, Communication on the Social and Labor Market Dimension of the Information Society: People First -- The Next Steps (23 July 1997), http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/info.html
14. See generally, The Future of Universal Service in Telecommunications in Europe, report to DG XIII of the European Commission, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/promo/pubs/uniserv/UniServ.html; Gurova and Danovska, The Universal Service in the Information Society, http://www.online.bg
15. The obligation is explicitly set out in Chapter II of the Voice Telephony Directive of 26 February 1998 (98/10/EC) http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ONPVTEN.pdf. Cost mechanisms are addressed in the so-called "Interconnection Directive" (97/33/EC) http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/d1-en.htm. See generally, Communication from the Commission, First Monitoring Report on Universal Service in Telecommunications in the European Union, 25 February 1998, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ip98182.html; DG XIII Universal Service Communication, supra, note 12. See also Council Resolution of 7 February 1994 on universal service principles in the telecommunications sector (94/C48/01), http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/legreg/docs/94c4801.html
16. "At the national level, the goal of universal access was a cornerstone of the 'old regime' of government-run and controlled telecommunications monopolies. The challenge facing us is to make this same principle a cornerstone of the 'new world information order' being brought about by today's competitive telecommunications environment." ITU Secretary-General Pekka Tarjanne, Telecommunications and the Global Information Society of the 21st Century: A View from the ITU, 24 November 1997, http://www.itu.int/itudoc/osg/ptspeech/chron/1997/42245.html
17. Voice Telephony Directive of 26 February 1998 (98/10/EC) http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ONPVTEN.pdf; see also DG XIII Universal Service Communication, supra, note 12.
18. See US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide (July 8, 1999), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/
19. ITU Report, supra, note 7.
20. See, e.g., Building the European Information Society for us all, final report of the high-level group (April 1997), http://www.ispo.cec.be/hleg/Building.html#2H
21. For a summary of European laws, see generally, The Future of Universal Service in Telecommunications in Europe, report to DG XIII of the European Commission, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/promo/pubs/uniserv/UniServ.html
22. Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ONPVTEN.pdf
23. See, e.g., the Estonian information policy, http://www.eif.ee/english/policy/. For examples of national policies on universal service from outside Europe, see India's new telecommunications policy, http://www.dotindia.com/flash/NewTelPo.htm; and three papers from the 1999 Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference (April 1999): Philippa Lawson, Improving Internet Access: The Canadian Approach, http://www.cfp99.org/program/papers/lawson.htm; Tracy Cohen, Access and Equity and the Global Internet: The South African Experience, http://www.cfp99.org/program/papers/cohen.htm; Bobson Wong, Improving Internet Access in China, http://www.cfp99.org/program/papers/wong.htm
24. 47 United States Code §254. The FCC issued its initial decision implementing the 1996 Act in May 1997. http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/fcc97157/. See http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/universal_service/welcome.html. See generally, Allen S. Hammond, Universal Service in the Digital Age: The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Codifying the Digital Divide, 50 Federal Communications Law Journal 179 (1997).
25. DG XIII Universal Service Communication, supra, note 12.
26. Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ONPVTEN.pdf
27. Communication from the Commission, First Monitoring Report on Universal Service in Telecommunications in the European Union, 25 February 1998, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ip98182.html
28. http://www.unesco.org/webworld/telematics/gis.htm
29. DG V, Communication on the Social and Labor Market Dimension of the Information Society: People First -- The Next Steps (23 July 1997), http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/soc-dial/info_soc/com397/97397i.htm
30. http://www.soros.org/principles.html. Computer Professional for Social Responsibility have also adopted a set of principles, entitled One Planet, One Net: Principles for the Internet Era. http://www.cpsr.org/program/nii/onenet.html
31. Communication from the Commission, First Monitoring Report on Universal Service in Telecommunications in the European Union, 25 February 1998, http://www.ispo.cec.be/infosoc/telecompolicy/en/ip98182.html
32. DG XIII Universal Service Communication, supra, note 12.
33. It appears that the most recent effort to spell out an action plan was adopted at the EU-CEEC Forum on the Information Society in Prague, 13-14 September 1996, which adopted an Action Plan entitled "Towards the Information Society in the Central and Eastern European Countries: Thirty Ideas for European Initiatives," http://www.mzt.si/mzteng/internat/eu-ceec/PECO002.HTML, a document that is now considerably outdated.
34. "Among the reported reasons for the Internet's success in North America is the widespread application of a flat-rate tariff structure offering 'free' local telephone calls...." Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, and the Implications for Regulation Towards an Information Society Approach, COM(97)623 3 December 1997, http://www.ispo.cec.be/convergencegp/97623.html
35. http://www.bojkot.cz (in Czech).
36. The boycott involved participants in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. http://www.telecom.eu.org; see also http://www.unmetered.org.uk
37. See Gurova and Danovska, The Universal Service Obligation in the Information Society, http://www.online.bg/femirc/forum/presentations-eng/universal-service.htm. See generally, European Parliament, Green Paper on the Role of Libraries in the Information Society, http://www2.echo.lu/libraries/en/green.html
38. UNDP Report, supra, note 2.
39. A search on the electronic database of "Eurocybercafes" (eyesite.simplenet.com/ eurocybercafes) showed no cybercafes in Albania and Georgia, while Belarus, Moldova, the Slovak Republic and Yugoslavia had 1 hit each. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Ukraine each showed 3 cybercafes; Hungary yielded 9 search results; Russia, 13; the Czech Republic boasted 21, and Poland led the list with 32.
40. ITU Report, supra, note 7.
|
The Center For Democracy & Technology 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 (v) 202.637.9800 (f) 202.637.0968 Contact CDT Copyright © 2005 by Center for Democracy and Technology. |