Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Universal Access 192

Posted by JonKatz from the wiring-the-planet-selling-tons-of-stuff dept.
Universal Access to computing and the Net is edging closer to reality. One company after another is now offering computing equipment and Net access to new employees. enRamp announced last week that it's offering a program to provide complete technology benefits to associates and their families. This is definitely a great moral (and business) idea whose time is coming. (Read More).

Universal Access to computing and the Net is becoming a reality, at least for some middle and working-class Americans, rather than the pipedream it was even a few years ago.

Among the sometimes arrogant techno-elite, the expense and complexity of going online is continuously trivialized, dismissed. But corporations seem to grasp how how critical it is for their employees -- and their kids and spouses -- to have Net access. And they?re making it happen.

Last year, the Ford Motor Company became the first major corporation to announce that it would provide computers, monitors and Net access to all its employees and members of their families, worldwide.

The Intel Corp. said that it would also give its employees home PC's plus Net access. Delta and American Airlines quickly followed. Intel actually topped Ford's better idea by providing PC's plus Internet access for its employees. Delta and American Airlines quickly followed suit. Intel topped Ford's offer by providing its workers with PC's that feature a 667-megahertz Pentium III, 128 megabytes, 32 megs of video RAM and a 20-gigabyte hard drive, plus a 17-inch monitor, a printer, a bundle of "productivity software" and a video-conferencing camera. Perhaps shamed by the fact that a car company trumped the tech industry, Intel even threw in each employee's choice of one computer-connected toy for the new Intel playline.

Friday, enRamp announced a new corporate affinity program that would enable businesses and other organizations to provide technology benefits, including complete computing packages to associates and their families. The idea of computing as an employee benefit is also significant. The enRamp program allows participants to obtain PC's by paying monthly charges of $24.95 or less over a three-year period, deducted from paychecks or organization dues.

Hardware aside, there's an enormous political idea here. Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance. Such companies like Ford see that access to computing can enhance morale and loyalty, facilitate corporate communications, transcend geographic boundaries, and even benefit family life, since many global employees and their kids would not be able to afford computers otherwise.

Ford and Intel get it.

This is good for the country, and great news for the tech industry: Universal Access, if it really catches, means staggeringly huge sales of computers, software and bandwidth to private companies, educational systems, perhaps even government agencies.

Universal Access is that rarest of social phenomena, the win-win issue. Except for moral guardians clucking about pornography and violent video games, who could really oppose it?: It can advance technology while it helps eliminate potentially bitter social divisions, upgrades literacy, education and research, liberates information, enhances democracy, strengthens community. Some companies even believes if strengthens family ties. It would make the Net a universal business, educational and social tool, rather than a network for the affluent, educated and technologically-inclined it is now.

Universal Access is one of the most unambivalently moral issues relating to technology and contemporary society. It helps fulfill the real promise of technology --- to bring information to everyone on the planet. Not to take anything away from the sweatshop issue, it's hard to think of a cause that would do more for the disadvantaged right here at home. While middle-class Americans are hooking up to the Net like mad, poor Americans aren't. Nor has most of the underdeveloped world. Without Universal Access, they will soon be hating the technologically-connected (especially the American variety) who monopolize and dominate the new technologies driving the global economy.

It's interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions (colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business. That they are, in fact, potentially good for everybody.

This will raise some interesting political issues as well, especially in countries with Ford workers but without protected freedom of speech. Since access to the Net makes censorship virtually impossible, countries with foreign workers working for companies like Ford will be under increased pressure to wire up.

So Universal Access inches towards reality. Although only a handful of companies have yet offered their workers full Net access and computing equipment, it seems inevitable that others will follow, if for no other reason that to stay competitive in a tight labor market.

Universal Access to computers doesn't guarantee any sort of social or techno-utopia, but would spread free speech and bring ideas like online voting closer. It will surely bring even bigger changes in retailing, e-trading, online entertainment and communication along with pressure to resolve the host of legal conflicts arising over patents and copyright. Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet.

The designers of the Net (read C.J.R. Licklider and Jon Postel) fantasized that the computer network would become a universal educational and information tool. Mostly because of class and other factors, that hasn't happened. Universal Access might make it so.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Access More

Universal Access

Comments Filter:

  • Re:that's true (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have noticed theworld edging toward universal access, or at least my community.

    Does that sound the least bit contradictory? I mean, your community is edging toward universal access.

  • Re:But here's a question...Plse help (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The internet is a fun party-- and is open to everyone-- but you have to find someone to extend the invitation to you.

    That's the only trick you have to learn; and it's not even a technical skill. It's how I learned how to use the internet and it's how everyone I know has learned as well; including my 70 year old parents.

    The first step is always getting someone to show you how to use email.
    The second is finding a person or mailing-list that will tolerate absolute-beginner questions.
    The third is to collect the locations of the depositories of useful information.

    I believe facilitating these steps will help.

    Without social interaction the promise of Universal Access is access to an empty room, a vacant desert.
    Best of luck!

  • Re:Control? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is an interesting bandwagon - but what happens when one of these employees gets busted for kiddie-porn? I smell class-action against the company providing the PCs - after all, it's their hardware, so they're liable, right?

    Not to mention intellectual property, or virus-writing teens, or folks using Gnutella to host thousands of MP3s on the hardware and connection the company so thoughtfully provided....

    I like the concept - if I were Joe Autoworker, it might make a difference whether I applied to Ford or GM, or went to work for Intel vs. Motorola - but I can't help but think the lawyers are going to try to ruin it by saying the corps. have responsibility for what's on these systems.

  • Re:The Rich Get Richer and Screw the Poor (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anyone who works for Ford or Intel can already afford a computer (especially now with Gateway and others creation of payment plans) and more than likely works with a computer daily at work.

    Umm, you're not too familar with what Ford does, are you?

    The last time I toured an auto plant, there were suprisingly few web terminals on the assembly line. And even fewer cases of little Jimmy coming in to use dad's computer (on the assembly line) to research his term paper.

    Oh, and these people, mostly lower-to-mid middle class, are on the edge of being able to afford a computer and internet access. They probably could, but it would definately not be trivial in their budgets.

    BTW, a couple of the other companies mentioned were airlines. Not big computer-on-the-desk kinds of jobs either.
  • Actually, I suspect it's not the admins that rule with the iron fist. I suspect it's management directives.

    I've previously had to write scripts tracking mail to/from. I've also had to hack the popd source code to take info from users incoming mailboxes. All of this has been at management direction, and usually my immediate supervisors and I have argued over it..but it comes down to...do it or someone else can have your job.

    I disagree (personally) with doing things like that, but I also like to eat and buy things myself. Perhaps that is a bit selfish :)

  • I think we know who the bigger karma whore is here. Wonder why you post a comment that you know will be moderated down as an AC...
  • I have to differ with the majority of the opinions expressed here.

    While I have no objection to allowing people regardless of [fill in criteria here], I do have other objections to universal access.

    First, I disagree with access for elementary/middle schools. We've all heard stories about school districts running fibre thrrough the school and then connecting it to the upstream provider with a cable. The sheer waste of money for such endeavors is appalling. Second, test scores for children in the US are consistently among the lowest. Do kids really need to be learning "Web Design 101" when they can't read/write/do arithmatic? What about the teachers who are struggling to get by on low wages in the face of this technology? And this doesn't even address stories of schools calling on tech support to help them set up the computers. Tech support arrives to find that the computers in question are across the room from the nearest power outlet (true story).

    Second, universal access for John and Jane Doe is not necessarily a good idea, either. John and Jane use AOL. They conform to much of the AOL stereotype. They use their AOL account to send chain mail along to their other AOL/prodigy/compuserve/... friends. They put up pictures of their beer parties and family outings on the web. While this is all well and good, it is an awful waste of disk space and bandwidth. If you're just going to share your pictures and send mail, use the USPS.

    Access has its uses, which I don't even need to list here. However, there are plenty of people for whom access means yet another bill for a service they don't use for much. Is this really a good thing (unless you're an ISP who likes to sell to infrequent subscribers)? I don't think so. Besides, the proliferation of purple-and-lime colored web pages with John and Jane on it has clogged the net (not to mention turning it into an eyesore example of what *not* to do when making a web page).

    While the net has its uses, especially for those among us who are power users, I don't think that this is sufficient justification for allowing anyone with a phone line and a power outlet on the net. Indeed, it is even less of a reason for a company to go out and give its employees computers and internet access. Those employees who wanted access already have it, and those who don't add to the clog of lemmings swelling the net.


    Who am I?
    Why am here?
    Where is the chocolate?
  • There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    When Harris Teeter gives you their VIC card which enables you to obtain discounts, they are selling your profile to lord knows who. Eventually people are going to be denied insurance claims or perhaps jobs because of their buying habits. They become an easily opened book. So when the cashier asks if I have a VIC card, I show her cash and say, "Here's my VIC crad."

    These companies who offer such access will do exactly the same thing. They will spy on you. Heck, if they equip these computers with cameras, they basically have the same setup as described in Orwell's 1984.
  • Instant on computers.

    Note that if you can really trust the OS and other constantly running programs not to cruft up (allocate memory and never deallocate it, etc.), you can simply have a sleep mode, where the memory and virtual memory is maintained until the user is ready to use the machine again. Generally the consumer OSes aren't reliable enough to do this with for long periods of time, though.
  • American Corporate Employee doesn't mean *Universal*.
    This is self-centrical and absurd. Universal would mean than any (put here any really poor country) family has a computer, a communications device (ie. a phone) and health, food, literacy, etc. enough to connect to Internet. It's really hard to press keys when you're starving, isn't it?

    Sigh. Sometimes I become desperate when I realise that even for some cultured Americans the Universe is USA...

  • Well, tech benefits are nice and all, just make sure to never check your email on your free time, because there may be waiting some messages from work for you.

    This whole thing is IMHO just a plot to drag employees into unpaid work-from-home.

    --


  • This is coroporate access, not universal access.

    Can you really imagine Walmart giving all their checkout staff a free PC? How about bank workers, postmen, gas station attendants, farmworkers? How about temporary staff, office temps, single working mothers, voluntary staff, and the semi-retired? This is indeed a rather blinkered vision of "universal".

    Universal should be all-inclusive. In fact there is a valid argument for giving to poorer and less advantaged communities first, to generate a better standard of living from the ground up, and with it a general increase in economic activity that benefits everyone.

    Some might argue, "Well at least it's a start." I disagree. Most of these socially beneficial ideas start with the privileged few and always seem to go out of political fashion before they ever seep down to those who need them most.

    Instead of big, bold PR stunts as these, companies should be implementing ethical recycling policies - old PCs + free software = inner city school IT system. How about free PCs for the local community?

    --
    Barry de la Rosa,
    public[at]bpdlr.orgASM,
    tel. +44 (0)7092 005700

  • Being lent a PC and net access by your employer is 'nice', but hardly a moral thing to do :P

    ..and what about privacy? What happens if our employment contract allows us own software we create on our own time and on our own PC? What happens if the PC is a company asset? What policies can/will companies enforce on their employees in order to take advantage of the offerings?

    "You were logged as visiting a pr0n site using company equipment, you're fired"

    Give your head a shake. Rue the day that I view my employer lending me gadgets a moral thing to do.

    Thus the candle hath singed the moth.

  • This isn't necessary, and here's why.

    What happens when an employee needs to call the office from work? He/she picks up the telephone. Do employers give out free telephones? No. Everyone already has a telephone, and probably a television. Most have VCR's and cable or satellite feeds too.

    The economies of scale are moving in the right direction without any assistance. With the convergence of telephone, television, and Internet that is ALREADY happening, it won't be long before employers can reasonably expect that their employees will already have Internet access at home.

    And just like many employers currently offer discounted long distance as an employee perk, they can offer discounted Internet access. Hell, they could even give it to them for free by putting a bunch of terminal servers just outside the corporate firewall.

    There's no need to implement Hillary Katz's latest socialist plan. Sorry.



    --
  • 1) Companies are giving away computers to their employees for the same reason that some companies give employees company cars: it's a way to pay workers without getting raped by federal taxes. It costs employers $2 to put $1 of cash in employees pockets, thanks to socialist parasites who promote free lunch schemes like universal access. Employer-paid health insurance started as a means of getting around FDR's World War II wage and price controls, y'know.

    2) If taxes weren't so damn high employers would just pay us cash and we'd buy whatever we want, without the strings, inefficiency, and paperwork.

    3) There are millions of people out there who are too stupid to use computers no matter how much training you give them. You can't exempt humans from the Darwinian evolutionary theory the government education monopoly has been teaching us.

    You can have freedom and low taxes, or you can have socialism/statism/fascism/communism, little freedom, little control over your life, and the universal "right" to a "free" PC some bureaucrat picked out for you. Plus Internet service equivalent to AOL run by the IRS.

    Where have all the Libertarians gone?
  • Yeah... I know someone who works for them. They took home a quad processor Onyx. Sweet.

  • Is this how Jon Katz got his computer? Did Andover give it to him, or was it People magazine? (he did work for them, didn't he?)

  • Among the "technology elete", there has always been this feeling that, if we could just spread our technology far enough, and give it to enough people, we could solve all the World's Problems. This led to things like donations of huge tractors to tiny Third World farms. Nobody thought about where they would get gas to power the huge monstrosities, or the fact that the technology was completely inappropriate for the situation.

    I still think it's generally a good thing for US companies to donate computer equipment and Internet connections to their employees, but to try and tout it as the solution to the world wide problem of the ever growing gulf between the "Haves" and the "Have-nots" shows a complete lack of understanding of the deep complexity of the problem and its root causes.

    -- Your Servant,

  • What is not really mentioned in Jon's article, is that sticking a pc in each employees home, complete with net connection, also gives the corporation a pipe directly to the employee that is available 24/7. It gives the employer another means of trying to coax more work out of the employee.

    What? they aren't allowed to turn off the machines? Such Tyranny!!!

    ---

  • remember the good old days of the BOS interrupt?

    I do...

    ---

  • Believe it or not, I realize that you weren't refering to skin color/gender/creed/etc.. You may have noticed the sarcastic tone in my previous post that I was using to get a point across. I was demonstrating that similar viewpoints have been used before to perpetuate an oppressive society. How is being classist that much worse than being racist. What makes you think that because someone has less money than you, that they're unintelligent and can't be tusted on the net. I agree that the popularization (Ok, that's may not be a real word but you know what I mean) of the internet has made fundamental changes in the type of information out there (and the quantity of spam in my mailbox), but that doesn't mean that trying to deny access to various classes of people will help put things back the way they were.

    You "see zero reason people should be encouraged to join it"? You don't think other people's viewpoints (from a variety of cultures) are important? You don't think /. benefits from people in various countries of differing economic backgrounds? If you don't like "being forced at gunpoint to give them computers" then sell you Intel stock (or ford or whatever other companies do this). If you recall, this is really about companies who've decided to do something for their employees.

    You don't believe in the right to information huh? I bet we could save a buncha money by closing down all our public libraries. Hey, maybe /. could start charging for reading articles and posting comments. That'd probably keep the trolls away. I mean, we all know that anyone who can't afford to post isn't really intelligent/doesn't have a vaild point anyway, right? This whole free public schools thing is pretty expensive too. I mean, I don't have kids, why should I pay for schools? I don't see a problem with having my tax money go to programs I don't directly use. Suppose my kid doesn't play an instrument or participate in school sports, does that make it unfair that $.23 of my taxes goes to that? It's a pretty slippery slope when people start complaining that they don't see any benefit from where their tax dollars go. (Sorry for getting a bit off topic, but it seems we're now on to discussing the hypothetical situation of the government giving everyone below the poverty line a free computer)

    Ok, I'll admit you lost me somewhere between the Sparc and how we should all die. I don't see believing that information and the internet should be more accessable or that we should try not to be so classist is so bleeding heart, but whatever. As I recall, the editorial is about how the working class is getting increased access to information and opportunites that the rest of us (those in tech fields, etc) already have. I don't understand how you're being forced at gunpoint to provide them with this or how the selfish views that they're going to suck up all your bandwidth are justified. I don't know if you're just trolling or objecting to this editorial because you hate jon kats (although I doubt both), but I think that companies providing their employees with "no strings attached" computers for home is a good thing.

  • In general, I totally disagree with the hyper-paranoid view that companies are just out to get you and that if they do anything socially responsible, it's to screw you in some way. Sure, they get good press out of it and will probably try and get some tax break, but I don't believe there's some master cabal of scheeming people whispering in Andy Grove's ear (I'll use intel as an example, since I'm an employee... and no, they don't pay me to root through /. stories and identify people who post negative comments through their PIII serial # so we can target space based lasers at their houses, I'm just a programmer... but I digress). So, there's some conspiracy to invade all their employee's privacy by giving us PCs and convincing some OEM who'll provide them to put some remote access software on it? Maybe they'll contact the ISP/ISPs who provide our service and set up some giant corps of people to examine every packet that comes over our "intel" connections! And, no one is going to find out about this... yeah. I suppose there's probalby some nefarious reason for them rolling out the PCs in under developed countires first, too. I mean they can already track us so they'd better get their hooks into everyone as soon as possible, right?

    They're not going to remotely search our PCs, they're not going to be able to arbitrarily take the computers back (we will own them), they're not going to monitor 70,000 employees remotly, and they don't have any more right to search the PC they give me any more than they do the ones I already own. I'm sure they could get a court order to search it, but I'm sure they could also get a court order to search the PC I have (that's why I organize all my "sick outs" from cyber cafes and from my friend's laptop using ricochet while on the move). Besides, I'm guessing that installing linux will foil their carefully laid plans for monitoring my behavior (unless maybe they're installing a hardware based spy solution :).

    I'll admit, part of the reason I'm anoyed at the paranoid viewpoint is that, these free computer policies are going to get me a new machine (I'll probably upgrade to a notebook) and maybe a cheap DSL connection. Just because a company is part of the "evil empire" (shhh don't let the marketing people know I said that), doesn't mean that when they do stuff, they have hidden motives. I mean, I guess that all those "intel involved" emails I get every week urging us to go volunteer at local schools could be really just so the secret society can plant serial #s in the kids heads, but I tend to doubt it. Sorry for the somewhat sarcastic post, but excessive paranoia irritates me. To bastardize occam's razor, if there's an easier explanation... it's probably true.

  • Oh yeah, I agree, more digital devide! I think we should have computer literacy test before allowing people to be given free computers. Possibly an IQ test (since we all know that they measure schooling and _not_ intelligence, I'll keep all those dumb people off our net). Maybe we could look up some of those old voter tests that they gave affrican americans back before that whole damn civil rights movement. Yeah, we can't have any of those inferior races polluting our pure net can we? And, we definatly can't give computers to people who can't afford one. I mean, what would we do if to poor got access to the same information that we of the rich tecnical upper echelon had? Dem uppity runt's would think they were as good as us! They'd probably just pawn 'em for booze money I bet.

    DO YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I won't try and assume or generalize about your political views, but do you understand that this kind of view calls for closed access so that only the rich elite are the privilaged few who can access the net? Do you believe that putting a computer in a kid's house who's parents may not be able to afford one is bad? I admit, with intel in this country it may not be the case, but at the fabs in other countries and with ford and other companies (danger generalization alert) people may not have access to the benefits you had when you grew up. Do you think that keeping them ignorant is really the way to improve their lives? I must assume that when you said, "There's nothing good in this", you meant "There's nothing good in this for ME". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the comment about bandwidth kinda makes it seem that way. I really hope this isn't a prevalent view point.
  • I agree Kool Moe, I'd happily see some of my tax money go to schools and libraries. I don't see anything wrong with my taxes being used to fund "socialist" programs like that. Another thing, despite the fact that this story has nothing to do with giving the wino down the stree a free computer (I don't think many intel employees are homeless), I don't see what wrong with giving him/her access to that. If it gives our bum (is that the term you used, I don't remember) new skills so he may be able to get a job, great! We pay a lot less in taxes here than in other countries (then again, I guess thats why our schools and health care may be suffering... but that's off topic), and although it may be inconvenient for me, I'm not starving to death or living in a box like some people in this country. I still fail to see how giving a computer to a family that may not be able to afford one is a bad thing. I think these companies are doing Something Good(tm). I admit that as an intel employee, I have a vested interest in this program, but I still stand by my beliefs.
  • Yeah, looks like he isn't even *pretending* to be a journalist, anymore. He's just like the trolls that post a link, saying it's something related to the story when it really is a link to pr0n.

    Hey, watch me get marked down as a troll for this! Oh, wait, if I don't post as AC, I might get "Informative" instead.
  • Public libraries are a wonderful, sharing way to get internet access to anybody who needs it. Unfortunately, many libraries are strapped for cash needed to obtain computer hardware and internet access, primarily because most people are such a bunch of tight-wads when it comes to paying taxes.

    Sharing computer resources in a public place is a much more efficient use of computer hardware than having 1 or 2 computers in every home that don't get used 85% of the time.

    As much as it pains me to say this, the real leader in the area of getting computer access into libraries is the Gates Foundation. You can walk into almost any public library in the US and find a Gates machine with internet access and lots of nice software.
  • No. That does not sound fair. Jon is making (or attempting to make) a serious statement here about a serious problem. Whether you agree with him or not (it happens that I do), surely you can see that he's trying to create discussion about an issue that is probably important, but underconsidered.

    -- Michael Chermside

  • Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already
    encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net. We can
    provide and upgrade and maintain the equipment, which helps, but some people are already asking us for
    some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in
    this? How difficult would this be?"

    IT training is a large and quite profitable industry. I am sure that any large training company would send people to developing countries - if the price was right, and the sponsoring company was willing to pay. An altruistic training company which would do such things on a non-profit basis might be harder to find, but my point is that any company could arrange this if the price was right.

    This exec presumably has a computer of her own via her company as part of its, ahem, "universal access" policy, and could well do the necessary searches for such companies herself, if the facility is as wonderful a thing and such a boon as John Katz seems to think. Start with international companies who do IT training in India, perhaps.

    I find it rather surprising that this rather fawning piece comes so close on the heels of the recent "corporatism" rant. There's truth on both sides, but it's difficult to trust the sincerity of a writer who can jump from one political extreme to the other with so little apparent self-awareness.

    We can all get cynical about multinationals ripping off the third world, but OTOH prehaps just giving some of those people jobs is charity enough for the present.

    A small percentage of beneficiaries of such a program may log on to online universities and the like, but what are the rest going to do? Fantasise about books from Amazon or CD's from wherever that they can't afford? Save up their wages to buy a copy of "Geeks" or the "Hellmouth" book? Scan porn?

    As someone else intimated, some of these people have more basic needs. "Universal Access" is still much further up Maslow's heirarchy of needs than the level that many of the citizens of third world countries are at.
  • How exactly will the hundreds of people living underground in Philadelphia and New York gain access to the 'net?
    If you don't understand what I'm saying, go to Suburban Station (sub-urban, get it? most people don't) under Center City Philly and keep looking for holes and grimy stairways leading downwards. You may have to walk a ways out along the rail tunnels if there has been a clean-up recently. True, you may become a protein resource, but you'll get an education... I've never had the balls to go very deep, but there are at least six levels down there. And not very many TVs...
    --Charlie
  • I've read some comments in this thread and I agree with those that state that giving a computer is just the first step ...

    I work at a university in DC, and just recently the students moved out for the summer. In an effort to lighten their luggage some threw away computers. Full machines. Some in various states of disarray, one was a perfectly good powermac. The office that I'm in is in the basement of a residence hall, so we interact with housekeeping on a regular basis. The housekeeping staff represents what I think is a representative of the population. They are people trying to do their job and get by. They know computers are expensive. and when they see them being thrown away they gather them and asked me if they are any good. When they find out that they are, their next question is invariably what can I do with it?

    Computers make little difference in the ordinary person's life right now. Beyond the scope of work(whether it be coding or memo writing) and game playing there is no real enhancement to an average persons life. You get home from work, you watch some TV, maybe a good movie is on tonight. They don't see the sense in teaching themselves how to use a computer, which is two steps from witchcraft anyway, when they can pop in a perfectly good videotape for entertainment and watch the news to see what's happening in the world.

    Until computers become as easy to use as the television and radio then they will continue to be limited to work and technofile/wannabe technofile use.

  • Last night I was at meeting at the MTHS [mthsonline.org] where my friend's doughter goes. It bacame obvious that using a BBS like message board would help foster better communication between the administration, teachers and parrents. Unfortunately at this point, only half the families have computers at home. This means that it looks like the main conduit of information flow will be a paper newsletter that goes out two times a quorter. At this point I'm feeling that computers and connectivity are becomming a necessity of life if only for just the communications enhancement it provides.

    PS: Anybody know of a good web based message board that is reasonably secure? It needs to be such that if the browser or computer is shut down you have to log back in. I'm sure I could hack that feature into almost any web based message board, but I'd rather not skin that cat again.

  • Those of you who have been around for a few years know what I mean.

    The 'net is dead, killed by universal access. Long live Quake, pr0n and grits.
  • Or do they not count Jon? you're fantasy of 'Universal Access' needs to be footnoted that it only applies to well educated americans with good jobs. certainly not to dirty foreigners with no electricity..

  • "The internet is not a bandaid. Its introduction into a chaotic society will not suddenly make everyone polite and good to each other. It is a wasted gesture until the society in question is stable enough that the people don't have to worry about starvation, disease, and violence and actually have the resources to learn how to use the information given to them."

    Nor was that his point. One point might be summed up as "More people with more information is better." Increased access is not a panacea for all the world's ills, but you'll have a hard time arguing that 'net access decreases the amount of data available, and that a more informed populace is less able to make rational decisions.

    And as for this specific question, I don't think jonkatz is talking about educating third world nations - I think he's talking about educating Joe Sixpack. We're so used to these machines that we forget that the guy at the assembly line hasn't had the kind of exposure to them we've had, and that they are an amazingly complicated and intimidating device for the new user.

    - eddy the lip

  • Re:Crap (Score:1)

    by Kaa ( 21510 )
    Maybe the same way they could force you to eat peanuts by leaving a bowl of them on your desk?

    Ancient wisdom: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts".

    In any case, if they are so much interested in my scores in Civilization and Baldur's Gate, all they have to do is ask :-)


    Kaa
  • Seems like Jon Katz felt the need to convince Slashdotters that connecting people to the 'net is a Good Thing. Gasp! Look at the nerve of the man! Such controversial ideas and right in front of all these geeks. Katz must reall have the courage of his convictions.

    Kaa
  • FYI ... seems a great many companies in these Orwellian times, have acceptable use policies they make you sign these days ... AUP's that contain sticks like termination for fscking around with the company's machine...be it at home or the office. reality sucks, huh?

    still though i'd be rebel enough to reformat and install slackware on it, piss on the bastards ;) fire me, im overdue for a raise anyway.
  • I don't think the RIAA will have this program anytime soon.
    --
    then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
  • What makes you think that because someone has less money than you, that they're unintelligent and can't be tusted on the net. I agree that the popularization (Ok, that's may not be a real word but you know what I mean) of the internet has made fundamental changes in the type of information out there (and the quantity of spam in my mailbox), but that doesn't mean that trying to deny access to various classes of people will help put things back the way they were.

    Not a thing. I have no idea whether you're rich or poor, and I don't care - you have a viewpoint and express it intelligently. That's what is important here. The real problem isn't that universal access (I'm talking about government-based plans here such as Mr. Clinton would like) would give the poor computers, but that it would give fools computers. There are enough fools on the Net already. We don't need more. Those who are hampered not by lack of intelligence but only by lack of funds can easily use existing resources such as public libraries.

    If you recall, this is really about companies who've decided to do something for their employees.

    It is for now. Unfortunately the US, at least, has seen recent government involvement here that would severely worsen the problem. Obviously I don't care if Ford etc. decide to give things to their employees - that's simply a private contract between two entities which are not me. The problem is that if people get in their heads that information is a right, a computer is a right, that universal computer and Net access is a good thing, then someone is bound to insist that we "think of the children!" and pay more taxes so that everyone will have access.

    I mean, we all know that anyone who can't afford to post isn't really intelligent/doesn't have a vaild point anyway, right?

    This is a misinterpretation. While I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding people who would agree, I'm not one of them.

    It's a pretty slippery slope when people start complaining that they don't see any benefit from where their tax dollars go.

    Indeed it is. It sends us down the path to freedom.

    Ok, I'll admit you lost me somewhere between the Sparc and how we should all die.

    The point is that making everyone equal means lowest common denominator, which is death. There is no other way. Inequality will always be present as long as humans live. I think this is a good thing. But it's also not much the issue here - because I don't think people should be prohibited from expressing their views just because they haven't any money. That's just silly. And not at all the point.

    I think that companies providing their employees with "no strings attached" computers for home is a good thing.

    Ok. But I would argue that there are always strings attached. Sooner or later, there will be problems with how, when, and for what purpose this stuff can be used. If there really were no strings attached, I would agree that this is good only if the companies are doing it to increase profitability. If they are doing it for feel-good reasons, I'm scared shitless. There's nothing more dangerous than a corporation that has something other than profits as a motivation. As long as they just want money their actions are easily understood and countered. Someone who thinks he is doing something for your own good is infinitely more hazardous than someone doing it for selfish reasons.

  • Re:BS (Score:2)

    by The Man ( 684 )
    Agreed. If anything, we need more digital divide. Most people who will get this free stuff don't have any appreciation for its uses. Those who do can already get access at public facilities like libraries and universities. All this really does is increase the number of people with net access and no clue. September that never ended, indeed. Then there are the privacy and ownership issues, the bandwidth problems, ... There's nothing good in this.
  • Skin color is irrelevant. Gender is irrelevant. Political viewpoint is irrelevant. I don't give a rat's ass what you look like or where you live or who your parents are. All I care about is not having a bunch of ignorant brain-dead AOLer fools polluting the Net. This is a culture, and like any other, it has its own rules, written and unwritten. If you want to be a part of it, you follow the rules. We have rules that, I believe, foster free thinking, open exchange of ideas, and creative humor. Many people who came on the Net as part of its popularization do not believe in these things - they are small, petty, hateful, commercial, ignorant, mindless, and/or disruptive. These are the people who think the Net has the same function as TV - to fill their empty minds with advertising jingles and sound bites. It's not supposed to be that way. This is a voluntary culture, and I see zero reason people should be encouraged to join it. Those who have something to contribute will do so without me being forced at gunpoint to give them computers (yes, I am an Objectivist).

    I am not wealthy. Get over the idea that I'm tryin' to keep the po' man down. It just ain't so. But I don't much care to help him either. He can make his own way as I have.

    I do not believe in the right to information. You have the right to whatever you can buy for yourself or convince others to give you. Information can and should be made freely available to those who choose to access it. It should not be forced on those who do not want it, have no use for it, and cannot pay the pittance required to get it, especially by forced extraction of money from the rest of us. Why doesn't the government see lack of a television as an inequity in need of redress? How about nice clothes? Suppose there is universal computer and Net access - isn't it unfair that some people have 21 inch monitors, but the poor only get the free 15 inchers? What about those of us who own real workstations not low-end peecees - shouldn't the poor have a right to an Octane or Ultra 2? And what about those of us who don't have vermin in our homes? Shouldn't the government do something about that inequity? Maybe a forced cockroach-infestation law would salve the liberal-extortionist's guilty social conscience.

    Where does it end? Death, plain and simple. After all, why should the living have rights denied the dead? We're all supposed to be so damn equal, and death is the only way to achieve that. Every living human should be killed and fed to the same furnace. Right now. If equality is your goal, that is how you must achieve it. There is no other way.

    Damn your bleeding heart to eternal Hell.

  • Your rose-coloured outlook really misses the point. Big business is rapidly transforming the Net from an egalitarian forum for the exchange of ideas to a one-way street with token interactivity where You The Consumer is fed as much marketing as they can dish out and where your choice for content is limited to what they want you to see. DMCA, UCITA, anti-"hacking" laws, it all leads to a corporate-led dumbing down of the Internet so that it becomes just another boob tube.

    What these companies see when they think of all of their employees connected to the Net is not a better-informed and more empowered workforce, they see a huge audience of potential consumers. Of course they want more people to be connected -- the marketroids cynically call us "eyeballs" and "clicks" and god knows what other automaton-like terms. The bigger the audience, the more justification for advertising dollars and the more money they'll make.

    Don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Right now the internet is still a great resource, and being connected is a great source of empowerment and education. But at the same time, don't confuse greed with altruism; at the same time they tell you they're increasing your freedom and access, they're busy trying to limit your choices to what benefits them.
  • Sorry, but I don't buy the claim that companies are offering Internet access because they loan or give cheap junk. And that's all it is! The bottleneck for Internet access is NOT the amount of RAM, or the generation of processor. It's a combination of bandwidth and efficiency.

    Frankly, I'm horrified that ANYONE could seriously believe that window-dressing was reality. It's all an illusion, designed for good PR and to deceive the gullible.

    What sort of network capacity do these folk get? An SDSL line, at >1 MB/s? Not on your life! At best, they might hope for a 56K modem and a subscription to a cheap, cruddy ISP such as AOL.

    Does that matter? Yes! It does! If you've a 56K modem, then you are limited to 56K, no matter HOW powerful your computer. You could have a 486DX-33 or a Cray 3, and it wouldn't make any difference.

    Lessee, what happens if they're given cable? Not much different, really. Give a workforce of 1,000 people a shared line, and each gets 1,000th of the network capacity, at best. (Minus loss, through retransmits and packet collisions.) In the end, these people are still using slow modems, only they have more jazzy slow modems. Slow modems with go-faster stripes.

    What kind of software are these people given? *BSD? Linux? Hell, no! Companies'll only be handing out Windows. Does -this- make a difference? YES! Never mind the software and stability, these are purportedly for Internet use. So why the hell are these people getting the SLOWEST TCP/IP stack in existance today? WHY are they getting the most LIMITED TCP/IP stack today? What kind of a deal is that?

    "Something is better than nothing." Yeah, right. Like these employees need to be brainwashed into being convinced that less is more, love is hate, war is peace, and that Big Brother loves them. These people need psychiatric help, to recover from this mindless abuse, if they need anything at all!

    Either give something that works, or don't waste people's time. "Good enough" =IS= enough, but good enough is at least something real. This is not.

    Are they given the means to search the Internet for information useful to them? I doubt it. Are they given the tools to exploit this medium to the full? Never! Are they given the means to use the resources of the Internet to better their lives and reduce overheads? Forget it!

    What would I see as a MINIMUM product to be worth the while of both company AND employee?

    1. Broadband access. At LEAST 1 Mb/s, both ways.
    2. An OS with a fast, =COMPLETE= TCP/IP stack. (Windows is OK-ish, with a 3rd party stack.)
    3. Multicast access. Not everyone'll use it, but nobody CAN use it if it's not there!
    4. Telephony software. With broadband, this is actually not too bad.
    5. X10 software & hardware. The ability to have lights & the TV auto-shutoff when not needed is a money-saver. It might not sound like much, but if the person needs a computer bought for them, they don't have the money to throw away on senseless waste.
    6. Web crawler & Web cache. Search engines are fine for the Ignorants out there, but if you know what you want, you need to have something specialised, tailored for YOUR needs. And you won't get that by wishing.
    7. IPSec and GPG. If you've a permanent connection, you need more security than Blind Faith.

    Notice I didn't list office s/w. If you want to do office work, go to the office. If you've a network connection to enhance your life and yourself, you don't need to be putting in unpaid voluntary time for your boss. You -were- given this stuff, right? So why pay for it?


  • Ford may be giving it's employees computers, but what about the rest of America?

    Those of us who make minimum wage in a dead-end job. Is Starbucks (the poster job of the "new economy") going to give computers to it's employees?

    Are day-laborers and migrant workers going to get a free computer along with the $3 a day that they make?

    What about the 40 million americans who live in poverty? Do you honestly think that the workplace (and most of america's poor are working poor, thank you Ronald Reagan) that refuses to give them a living wage will fork over a pentium II?

    This is ridiculous. The idea of relying on corporations to "provide" such basic things as communication is very dangerous. Once they give you your computer, they have so many more avenues of exploitation, and even then, those on the very bottom (the people who could really use a computer in order to better organize themselves politically) never receive these supposed "benefits".

    We are only people who can provide universal access with no strings attached. We're the ones who know which technologies can be implemented cheaply, we're the ones who have a commitment to both freedom of speech and freedom of information. We're the ones willing to open these things to *everyone*, regardless of race, class, gender or location. We're the ones with a little bit of disposable income. :)

    The idea is to set up computer access cooperatives/collectives. Community owned, non-profit and collectively (read: directly democratic) run "libraries" where people can get full internet access, as well as access to different pc architectures to learn on, without fear of being censored or "watched" (remember how horrible a feeling it was to get in trouble in high school for being at a DOS prompt?).

    Some people think that the only way things can get done are via a corporation or the State. I beg to differ. Voluntary groupings of individuals are the only way that projects are born and completed without the authoritarian baggage that the former two institutions insist on.

    Michael Chisari
    mchisari@usa.net
  • What kind of crap is this? The story is *mildly* noteworthy, but after 50 other companies this is not news for nerds or stuff that matters.

    This "techno elite often forget... technology gap" babble embarrasses me, and I'm proud to call myself a liberal. Hearing Jon Katz talk about this gap is like listening to those Volvo Turbo driving PSEUDO environmentalists (note I'm not targeting the environmentalists here just the mee-too's driving the eco-unfriendly-but-still-somehow-socially-consciou s vehicle crowd).

    Tell me, how many disadvantaged are getting this helping hand? If "more and more" employers are helping the disadvantaged this way, back up that assertion withan employer that actually HIRES (or exploits) disadvanted folks, such as McDonalds, Tropicana, or the nondescript people in CHinese prisons and sweatshops who will inherit the remaining non-technology blue collar jobs in the USA.

    Want to address the information gap? Then attack the problem at the SOURCE... public SCHOOLS. People don't need private corporations to solve social problems.... these things always come with hidden costs.

    If we can admit that higher and quality education is what is needed to get people into jobs that allow them to be self-sufficent, then we as a country (and this is not just a USA problem) need to stop pushing the higher and higher costs of education back onto local governments that cannot afford it. There isn't much of a difference between elite public schools and elite private schools, yet there's plenty of bad public schools that churn out illiterates (and don't have the tax base to even fill street potholes). Governments are just becoming weaker and weaker, and handing 6000 years of progress to the multinationals.

    Jon sometimes makes some good points, but he takes too long to get there, and usually comes across with the flair of a failed drama student.

  • "It can advance technology while it helps eliminate potentially bitter social divisions, upgrades literacy, education and research, liberates information, enhances democracy, strengthens community. "


    Care to tell me how having a computer will make someone who was once illiterate literate ? .. or even "upgrade" their literacy ? How will it liberate information when you have DMCA and other
    crap going on trying to censor everything ?


    A computer, like a car,is a tool.. It doesn't make things better just because you have one.. there are still a lot of crazy people out there who drive cars.. just like there are lots of crazy people out there with a computer and access to scripts.. (a.ka. script kiddies).. before you run around giving people computers or cars.. teach them responsibility first.



    "Universal Access is one of the most unambivalently moral issues relating to technology and contemporary society. It helps fulfill the real promise of technology --- the bring information to everyone on the planet. Not to take anything away from the sweatshop issue, it?s hard to think of a cause that would do more for the disadvantaged right here at home. While middle-class Americans are hooking up to the Net like mad, poor Americans aren?t. Nor has most of the underdeveloped world. Without Universal Access, they will soon be hating the technologically-connected (especially the American variety) who monopolize and dominate the new technologies driving the global economy.

    It?s interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions ( colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business. That they are, in fact, potentially good for everybody."

    you obviously woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.. countries that aren't where the US is in terms of wealth and technology.. are teaching their kids.. and their kids are growing up knowing and wanting to make their country better.. it's called healthy competition..
    every entrepeneur in this world had the same desire to have what he didn't have. Giving away free computers though might be good initially.. but in the long run it's bad.. what do u tell the neighbors kid who's father doesn't work for Ford or Intel or enRamp ? .. this is just another situation.. looking to become a welfare nightmare.

    PS: Jon.. please.. double check your post before you post it.. I'm sick of seeing "Intel topped Ford?s idea"... now I know you aren't a good writer.. but geeez.. even AC's don't make such stupid mistakes. What's an it?s ?

  • well, it's not too hard to be generous when your rolling in dough [yahoo.com], I mean raking it in - geez, ever hear about the profit margins [4x4.org] on SUV's being on the order of 10K per unit?
  • Agreed, universal access to computers and the web would probably be a good thing for society, just as payphones and libraries are good for society. Especially with the advent of free on-line universities like Ars Digita [arsdigita.org], it could offer opportunities to people who couldn't otherwise have them.

    But people who work for large corporations can already afford computers and internet service, and whether or not they have them is just a question of preference. There are lots of people who don't work for large corporations, and who don't own computers or pay for net service, because they spend their money on things they consider more valuable.

    You'd come a lot closer to universal access with something like a phone booth. You walk up, pop in a quarter, and get ten minutes of web-surfing time. Like a real phone booth, you get anonymity as well. This would make the internet available in small amounts to people who don't want to spend much money on it. Regular users could use it to check an online PIM or a stock price.

    The anonymity of a web phone booth would address many of the concerns voiced that the corporate PC giveaway is meant to track marketing data, or to enable the corporation to coerce people to work at home.

  • Am I the only one who thinks that this is not good?

    7 years ago when I first got on the internet through college, there were no big corporate web sites. AOL and Compu$erve only had email gateways to the internet. They couldn't FTP or gopher. Now everyone and his mother (literally) is getting onto the internet. It's funny that the more of these clueless newbies get on the internet the more of a call we have for regulation.

    The latest virus scare is the perfect example. People buy new computers preloaded with windows. They don't understand that they have a choice other than Outlook/Express for their e-mail. Many new targets for a VBA e-mail virus. Virus strikes, and we have media pundits asking politicos what the governments of the world can do to make the internet safer for the children.

    I realize that the party's over, it's not "our thing" anymore, but why in the name of Bool are you celebrating that?

    LK

  • Re:Crap (Score:2)

    by Kaa ( 21510 )
    The corp will own the PC and the access and will have little trouble reading your e-mail and checking out your browsing habits.

    Use the Nancy Reagan defense ("Just say no").

    In any case, AFAIK currently the computers are given out free of strings. A lot of companies allow employees have company-owned computers at home (laptops especially), but that's different -- it's clear that it is a company computer to be used for company business only.

    And of course, even if in some future some corp decided to force a home PC on me, how will it force me to use it?

    Kaa
  • I dont think that the companies that are providing these free PCs and internet access are doing it out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.

    What is not really mentioned in Jon's article, is that sticking a pc in each employees home, complete with net connection, also gives the corporation a pipe directly to the employee that is available 24/7. It gives the employer another means of trying to coax more work out of the employee.

    That said, I think it is still a good thing.
  • I agree with you for the most part but I also really agree with the original posters point that a company could use this as a further lock on owning projects you work on at home.

    It doesn't have to be a conspiracy at all. Just imagine a company gave away PC's to all the employees.

    Suppose now that one worker takes that machine and works on some GPL project, providing crucial code for some difficult task, or perhaps a majority of the code altogether.

    A year passes, and the company finds itself wanting to do some similar difficult task. Perhaps it finds this free GPL software, and thinks it would like to build the same thing or perhaps considers asking for a license to resell a closed version of the product.

    Then, the company finds from the source that an employee of the company contributed a lot of work to the project.

    Under a lot of companies IP agreements (including the one at my current company that I am trying to get re-worded) even if you didn't use a company PC for development, they might claim that anything produced while under thier employment is thier IP. As the machine used to do the work was provided by them and the IP agreements all usually have specific clauses saying that anything produced using company equipment is thiers, the company could pretty much take over the ownership of the project copyright and close it off.

    It might not even matter if the employee had quit - the agreement my current company is trying to sign says that anything I produce up to a year after I leave also belongs to them.

    It doesn't take a conspiracy at all. All it takes is a company to realize that through accident or design they have aquired a possible legal right to something, which they will then fight to protect.

    I wouldn't even nessicarily call it evil, currently that is simply the nature of business folk. I think that lacking a deep undertanding of what makes a technological product a success many businesses simply grasp at everything they can hoping for a success.
  • ...PeoplePC [peoplepc.com] , without the engaging salesman.

    The enRamp program [http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-1798138.html ] allows participants to obtain PC's by paying
    monthly charges of $24.95 or less over a three-year period, deducted from paychecks or organization dues.

    According to Jon we would have Universal Health Care...if everyone worked for giant corporations. Jon, what was your point again? Oh, yea, computers are good for people... Thanks for the update.
    --
  • We already know that major corporations pay for marketing information collected from unwitting surfers. Are we willing to bring universal access to humanity at the price of making everyone a target for marketers?

    This is definitely not an argument against universal access. Give me your home address and I'll tell you why...o.k. fine, I'll tell you anyway. All of the marketing information is already available. Yes, they might get a bit more detailed info (and know you have a 500mhz p3) but beyond a certain point, gathering marketing information is a useless proposition. hmmm, here's the link. [nytimes.com] Personally I think marketing info hits a type of Heisenberg limit where the simple asking of the question changes the answer to such a degree that it is meaningless.

    Then see if there's another way to finance this venture, one that doesn't depend on turning hapless people into cash cows to be milked by the highest bidder.

    Well, for anyone who hopes to makes money with advertising on the Net, the constant parade of cash cows is what it is going to take. And I think it's going to happen anyway. And once they get a taste of dial-up, they'll learn of the freedom that comes with broadband. Hopefully by the time they get there, the Internet will still be Free.
    --
  • I'm just here to make sure people don't think Katz's stuff is too useful. If he writes these silly little puff pieces that I could pull out of my ass with better links in under an hour, he deserves a bit of flamage.

    How about some links on the Digital Divide, Jon? How about info about the have-nots are buying computers at a higher rate than the haves? (which is obvious if you think about it for a second)
    How about some "news"?

    Katz has a tough audience, one would think that would make him a better writer. One would think...

    as an example

    Without Universal Access, they will soon be hating the technologically-connected (especially the American variety) who monopolize
    and dominate the new technologies driving the global economy.

    The highest cost of a computing system is the software that runs on it. Maybe Katz should redirect this attack if he really wants to make a difference or if he really understood the issues.

    'Twas a weak article, so I flame it...twice.

    --
  • I've heard some of this info already, but this is better, I think, than the movie or book reviews you've done lately.

    -jpowers
    You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...
  • Yeah, but why do you assume that assembly line workers are less intelligent? You have what appears to be an amazingly low estimation of people's intelligence.

    True, as a sysadmin, I know that there is a good percentage of lusers out there, but I don't think that percentage is any different across different work enviornments.

    Hehe...the are likely _more_ lusers in a computing enviornment, but they just think they are smarter.

  • Universal Access is that rarest of social phenomena, the win-win issue. Except for moral guardians clucking about pornography and violent video games, who could really oppose it?

    Actually there are a number of very good counterarguments to universal access, though most of the people who are pushing universal access ignore them as if they were trivial or non-existant.

    1) Where are we going to get the money to provide universal access?

    In Katz's essay, he says "Universal Access, if it really catches, means staggeringly huge sales of computers, software and bandwidth...". Well, money isn't created in a vaccuum; it has to come from somewhere, from some program which perhaps is arguably more needful of the money, such as research into AIDS or from retirement funds or health care. The "staggeringly huge sales" has to come at a price, and that price is going to be less money somewhere else.

    (And don't say "it's going to come from the bottom line of corporations"--as Katz has argued in the past, corporations protect their bottom lines very well.)

    2) Are we talking universal access as in telephones? Or as in television?

    My point here is this: universal access as in universal access to telephones is a worthy goal. The ability to communicate to the outside world in the event of an emergency, the ability to keep in touch with people who have traveled abroad, the ability to "reach out and touch somebody" is mostly accepted as a good thing. (Phone sex lines aside, of course.) Of course universal access has yet to be accomplished in the United States, as evidenced by a Navaho woman, who upon receiving a computer to help her bridge the "digital divide" pointed out she had no electricity or phone to plug the computer into.

    Universal access as in television, on the other hand, is not always accepted as a good thing. In fact, there are many who argue that television is the source of a number of social ills which could best be repaired by turning the boob tube off. Of course I don't necessarly agree with the findings of people who argue television causes rape or violence by children, any more than the Columbine shootings were caused by playing Quake. But it is clear that universal access to television isn't universally accepted as a good thing.

    3) Are we talking about using this new-found "universal access" to "bridge the digital divide" in schools?

    It's arguable that there is in fact a "digital divide" between wealthy school districts and poor ones that is causing a difference in the educational quality of our students. It's more likely that rich school districts produce better students than poor ones because they have money to spend on textbooks and better teachers. It's also possible that the socio-economic dispare caused by being poor counts as a strike against students in poor schools in the first place.

    The fact that there is even a "digital divide" in the first place is questionable: it seems pretty clear to me that rich people have computers because they can afford them, not because having a computer made them rich. Yet those who argue a "digital divide" are in essence arguing this very fact--that having a computer makes someone rich, not the other way around. And unless you are a programmer making a living using a computer, this strikes me as so much bullshit.

    So now that we're talking about putting computers into junior high schools and high schools, what are we going to do with them? Use them in place of slide shows and movie strips that many teachers use in lew of creating a teaching plan? Use them in place of memorization of addition tables and multiplication tables (as calculators are being used now), which will cause more and more people to be so "numerically challenged" that they will take as gospil the results of a cash register where they accidently pressed "7" instead of "4"? (I've had this happen, where I've actually had to call out the manager, because some kid was offering me $3 in change on a $4 purchase, because he hit "7" instead of "4". And as everyone knows, 3 + 4 = 10.)

    And if we're going to put computers into every classroom, where are we going to get the money to put them in, pay the electricity, maintain them? From the textbook budget? From the facilities budget? From the teacher's salaries? Going back to point 1, what will suffer so we can give students high tech toys which will be obsolete in 3 years, and need to be replaced?

    It's fairly clear to me that some degree in computer proficiency is a reasonable requirement, just as typing classes were pretty much required of secretarial types. But given how quickly things are changing, should this computer proficiency be provided by our high schools at tremendous expense, for students who may wind up as an automechanic or a doctor, or should those skills be provided "on the job" by the corporations who decide to use Lotus Notes intead of Microsoft Outlook Express.

    Personally I think our rush to "universal access" by governments and corporations and schools is a mistake, and a rather serious one. While I for one wouldn't mind more sources of revenue for Apple, Microsoft, Compaq and others, I don't know if I really want this in place of properly funding retirement plans, or properly funding textbooks in schools, just so that people can experience a "cyberspace" whose pipe dreams are backed by financials which are even now collapsing at warp factor speed.
  • Universal access is the telephone company. They must give you telephone if you can pay the bill.

    Actually, phone universal access is provided to people who cannot afford to pay the bill, if they pass an income test. That is, universal access is a subsidity, paid for out of a "universal access tax", to subsidize phone service to those who would otherwise not be able to afford one.

    Pacific Bell's access service is called "Universal Lifeline", and is available to anyone in Southern California making less than $17,400/year (for singles).
  • That's a good point, but I don't think it's quite accurate. Companies aren't out to make their employees suffer.

    My company gave me a free cell-phone. Using it means that I'm on call, but only for problems. I get an average of 1 or 2 calls a month right now. And I normally receive them when I'm on lunch or something to that effect. It cool too, because if the call lasts 2 minutes, I can claim 15.

    I don't mind it at all.

  • This is my favorite quote: ...eliminate potentially bitter social divisions...

    Someone needs to show Usenet to Jon Katz.

  • ...it's hard to think of a cause that would do more for the disadvantaged right here at home.
    Better schools and teachers?

  • what about all of the other countries, both in the americas and outside this hemisphere? Intel and Ford have employees in other countries, specifically our NAFTA partners. Yet, if you read the releases and such, they don't extend these offers to offices outside of the US.

    Sorry to say, but I'd think it's more important to extend this offer outside of the US realm into countries where there is much more of a dividing line between the technological "haves" and the "have nots".

    While commending Ford, Intel, and others for their moves, we should also encourage these huge industry leaders to extend their offers outside the US where a large percentage of their employees, and lower-paid employees, work and reside.
  • if the computer is given out by the company, is it still considered the company's property?

    if it is considered the company's privacy, are they allowed to monitor communications to and from that machine as they are allowed to on the office computer?

    hmmmm
  • I concur and I would add, in a somewhat naive fashion, what about better salaries? This company-giving-away-PCs charity sort of thing is nice (conspiracy and surveillance theories aside) but getting more money allows workers to buy PCs, get access from any provider they want or, maybe, forget about the computer and get a whole lot of books or other educational materials. I don't want to sound like a hardcore capitalist but more money can buy them more freedom. What about better distribution of the company earnings? Charity is ok but giving the people the economic means to make their own informed decisions on what, if any, computer to buy and what ISP to choose is, IMO, much better.

  • This essay does not describe universal access at all. Universal access is access for everyone, not merely a few select individuals who have the money and a few who happen to work for a particular company.

    The only way we can assure truly universal access in the US is to legislate this as a requirement.
    For instance, cable companies have monopolies in the US. We allow them to have monopolies, but at the same time, they can or can't (by thier choise) offer internet access, and even then, only to certain users they like (non Windows users need not apply), and can restrict the purpose of the server (people who run ircd need not apply). This is not universal access.

    Universal access is the telephone company. They must give you telephone if you can pay the bill. They can't say "We don't want to serve you telephone becuase you live too far out there" nor can they can "You like to use that phone from company XYZ and we only allow phones made from ABC."

    Additionally, there is no definition of access here. Is access PPP? What about an email address? Do you need mail to have "access"? Is the ability to surf the web withot restrictions like NetNanny access or can access include such restrictions?

    I contend that universal access is more than an IP address just as phone access is more than just a peice of wire in one's house. If the people want true universal access, these terms need to be discussed and agreed upon.

    When 100% of the population has the opportunity to be online then it will become a choice as to whether or not they want in (just as some people choose not to own a telephone). As things stand now, universal access is just a dream.

    - Serge Wroclawski
  • Being connected is a personal thing.

    One's connection should not depend upon one's current employer, as this would only (as many here have pointed out) result in an Internet controlled by corporations. At first it seems as though it would be nice to have *everyone* online, but at this point in society, maybe everyone doesn't *belong* online.

  • ...I wonder if the people that are getting these computers from their companies are the people that:

    a) couldn't afford it in the first place
    b) would benefit the most from having improved access

    Don't get me wrong, I think this is an absolutely great idea. However, in a time when the gap between the haves and the have-nots is at an absolute high, universal access to educational materials is VERY important. Will a few companies dishing out PC's and net access solve this problem? Probably not...and this is definitely NOT universal access. Universal access will come when everybody, regardless of race, age, or socio-economic status gets internet services provided for free in their household.

    Right now, we're most likely helping out the people who already have jobs and have children who are in school, probably getting a decent education and most likely have PC/internet access at their schools. We're helping the people who don't need to be helped...but isn't that way it always is in this country?
  • Jon Katz, if you define Universal Access to computing as companies like Ford and Intel giving money to employees then maybe you need a redefinition of what the word universal means. Anyone who works for Ford or Intel can already afford a computer (especially now with Gateway and others creation of payment plans) and more than likely works with a computer daily at work.
    Universal Access will only occur when concrete moves are made to put computers in public schools concurrently with teachers being trained in how to use computers and internet technologies. Until then all that will occur is that the digital divide will grow larger and differences between the haves and have-nots will only increase.

  • I've been thinking about this one for some time, since I have several people out in "the field" (read: I can't get to them to fix their laptops when they screw them up).

    Because of this, I think there need to be a series of pieces that will help companies out:

    Instant on computers.
    On a recent Jay Leno show, William "The Girdle Wasn't Mine" Shatner talked about how hard it was to use his computer. The On switch was in the back, and it took forever to boot up. I keep thinking that the advances in the Palm OS, or perhaps some super small kernel of Linux for specific hardware systems (where the entire Linux OS was held within a Flash Bios that could boot within 2 seconds). Hit the button, it's on. Hit the button, it's off.

    Real tech support
    I've been seeing these "Free Computer" deals, where for $30 a month you get the Internet, computer, and "support". But usually support is all online, and for somebody using the Internet for the first time, they don't even know how to get onto the Internet. The iMac has helped with this (plug it in and you're practically done), but PC's should take the same route. As a Linux newbie, it seemed to take forever to hook up my modem to the Internet. (Yes, DSL was easier through the Ethernet, but that's another story.)

    Stability
    I know I'm preaching to the choir here, so this should be short. When that blue screen pops up, the "average user" doesn't know what it means. Go back to 1 to instant boot computers, and you notice I make Linux the base. Perhaps BSD would be better, but make it so that it's very difficult to crash. It some company were to make these machines like the iMac (hey, perhaps the iMac would be a good choice to begin with...) with one hardware system, they could update the system over the Internet.

    Don't require anything to plug in other than power, but allow expansion.
    Keep it simple. Allow PS/2 and VGA ports, but don't make the user have to use them if they don't want to. Give it the ability to have new upgrades if the user wants, but don't force them to do it.

    Worldwide ISP
    I signed on my executives with AT&T because I knew they were global. Guess what: they don't offer global internet access. I was going to use IBM.net, but they got bought by AT&T (the bastards). Now I'm forced to use MSN or AOL so they can get to the 'Net from Japan using the same account. Somebody out there know of a good global ISP that doesn't make me use an install CD I don't want?

    Don't force the user to upgrade
    I was in a CompUSA once, talking to once of the salespeople, when he made an interesting comment. "I don't like to sell people the iMac," he told me. "If they buy a Windows system, they're always back to upgrade it and make it better. If they buy a iMac, they don't have to upgrade the machine, the OS, or anything else. We usually never see them again."

    All right, so that was a little long. But this is what we need. You hardware vendors out there, get cracking. Make it small, make it affordable, and make it so I don't have to force Bob from Alabama to email me his laptop when it breaks down.


    John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
    We don't just like games, we love them!
  • Always on Internet connections via the local telcos?...

    Interesting idea, but I don't see the Bell Atlantics, US West's and the Switch manufactures like Nortel and Mitel supporting it. It would kill their cashflow and leave them as wirehaul leasing companies renting copper pairs instead of how they operate now with mass cusomized products and serives all based on analog swtiching. Anything other than plain old battery and ground is going to cost you. Especially when they sell these capabilities wholesale to CLEC's and the like. They are making a killing and also holding on to the monopolies they have created. If they put digital capability standard into every home, they would need to rebuild the whole infrastructure which in most cases is still based on 1930's technology, at least for the last mile.

    This would be hugely expensive and they would lose their only remaining competetive edge which is they own the last mile and all switching, ploes, templates right up to the MPOP. They will never give this up. If they were to rebuild, there are many companies out there which would do it better, faster and cheaper than the Ma Bell companies.

    Unfortunately they are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to vision. Most of the Senior Execs and upper management in the RBOCS are old time telephone guys. They're still chasing dial tone. On the advantage side, they have one of the most powerful lobby's on the hill. These guys own the FCC.

  • Re:Crap (Score:2)

    by 348 ( 124012 )
    We pay way too much in taxes now. It's not that they're not needed, or at least a percentage of them anyway, speaking only for myself, I'm tired of paying and time after time, the government turns things like universal service into a socialistic welfare like program. IMO if the drunk down in the halfway house wants net access and a pc, let him get a job and pay for it himself. I'm already paying over 35% in taxes now.

    As for supporting the schools and librarys being connected, I think it's a great idea, but the monies we have to spend is rediculusly high. The money is being mis-managed and mis-spent. If the government regulates/mandates universal access like universal service why would it be any different?

  • Re:Crap (Score:2)

    by 348 ( 124012 )
    Your not being an alarmist IMO.

    We're (in the US) already getting screwed by Universal Service, Schools and Libraries version of Universal Access. You pay every moth on both your local and long distance bill. It's a5% tax which goes to wire schools and libraries with pc's and connectivity. Just another socialist program brought to you by good old lobbyists. My question is who will pay for Universal Access? Bet you it'll be the average taxpayer.

  • All of the marketing information is already available

    I respectfully disagree. Some marketing information is already out there, not all marketing information. Surfing habit's, purchasing patterns, times on-line, features used, etc. etc. and that's just the advertisers, not bigco that gave you the hypothetical PC. Each little sniglet of information gathered is just a clue. Add them up and the picture paints oof co-branding, cross and up selling and DB's that are chock full of not just real data on you but also autogenerated assumptions based upon profiling.

  • Funny? Yeah, but I would have modded it Insightful. Heres why.

    Universal access won't be brought to the masses by Ford or Intel or Jimmy's towing service. Universal Access will be brought to you by Uncle Sam. Just as Universal Service was brought to you by Uncle Sam via the Telecom Reform act. Universal Service gets paid for by who? You guessed it, the average taxpayer.

    Universal Access is just the @home version of Universal Service (HR 7317). The goverment will end up pushing the effort to brag we're the best most connected country on the planet! Rah Rah Rah. So what? So little average 8 year old Billy can surf pr0n?

    I'm so sick of paying more taxes to fund programs like this.

  • First off, I'd like to suggest that someone employ an editor for Katz. It's actually getting painful to wade through these posts, and that's probably causing a drop-off in Katz readership. Please, just run them through an editor to check for broken links and erroneous spellings. I'm assuming that was meant to be 'morale', not 'moral' for instance.

    I'm not mentioning this to nit-pick or play kick-the-Katz, but because it really is bloody annoying. Do you remember when people used to put blinking text in their ANSI sigs and it'd make your poor little terminal bleed until someone told them that they shouldn't be doing that? Consider it a PSA.

    Anyway, on to the point. Universal Access. Who cares? It's only useful for breeding into the society to which it belongs. The wired society. Universal Access isn't going to be some kind of wonder that fixes everything. Early adopters will have an edge in the tech jobs market, but that's going to mean absolutely nothing in a few years, once society catches up to itself.

    What good is the internet? That's the question I've been asking myself quite frequently lately. I'm not coming up with a large listing of answers, either.

    People employed by 'progressive' companies will now be installing filter software to keep their kids from checking out porn. Woot-oot. Is anybody under the illusion that the average teenager or even child is going to be enriching themselves on the net? Television did wonders for them.

    I actually try to enrich myself somewhat, and I'm not making a hell of a lot of progress at the moment.

    Don't just say this is a nice step for no reason. Why does everyone have to be wired? Why is it so important?

    This doesn't impact, to a huge degree, the workers that are getting them. It doesn't make their jobs any easier. What it does is make it more likely that they'll:

    1) Stay with the company
    2) Passively headhunt for the company

    Woo-oo.

    Don't fall all over yourself thinking this is some gigantic leap into the future. It ain't. It's a company utilising an incentive package to keep current employees and lure new ones into their fold.

    Considering the possibility that internet use can prove addictive, it may even be on the shady side of legal. Free cigarettes to employees wasn't all that uncommon in years gone by.

    Peace.
  • The question, of course, is then one of how much control these corporations have over the computers. Are they so that employees still can do work from home when sick? Is it so that they can see which employees are looking for work elsewhere online?

    I agree that universal access is a good thing, but the question will always be one of who the gatekeepers are and what are they doing with the information. When I go to an ISP, I'm a customer and they have a professional relationship with me. When my company provides it, they already have a vested interest in me, and perhaps want to get a little closer than I'd like.

    How much information will we allow corporations to gather about us?

  • Plus, what's gonna happen when Joe {insert corporation name here} Employee uses a company-purchased PC to traffic in kiddie porn?

    Imagine the local news headlines: "{insert corporation name here} Liable in Kiddie Porn Connection: News at 11"

    I realize this happens every day in the workplace, but I would imagine it'll become a sticky situation when, say, the religious zealots/wacko, SUV-driving, soccer moms start suing the corporations because said zealots assume that the corporations therefore are the facilitators for whatever bad bhavior the corporations' employees are engaging in while on the internet.

    It's one thing to control the PCs in a workplace, but I can't imagine the legal cans-of-worms which will attempted to be opened by the religious/right wing/anti-smut/anti-porn/anti-internet/pro-censors hip/pro-Jesus/right-wing/fundamentalist/ f lag-waving/thrice-divorced/let's-get-kinky-but-pre tend-we're-really, really religious/"Hey, Chuck, are you gonna play basketball in the church's men's league, tonight?"/"Let's send out kids off to fundamentalist Earth-For-Jesus camp so we can get out damn kids out of the house and give ourselves at least one week of peace and quiet because we work hard, worship hard, and deserve it" folks?

  • Hardware aside, there?s an enormous political idea here. Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance.

    Jon Katz would presumably like to see some 'bread and circuses' trip granting free internet access to all. Nice idea in the tree-hugging sense, but the economics don't work. Firstly, on a sociopolitical note. There are no such things as 'rights', and anyone who believes so is naive. There are privileges, which have to be fought for to establish in the first place, and to maintain thereafter. Many reading this site will consider education to be a right. In truth, our forefathers fought for this privilege, which has to be paid for somewhere along the line. Even you lucky people in the US of A, who have a constitution giving you rights, (unlike us poor sods in the UK), will only have those rights as long as there is someone strong enough and willing enough to defend them.

    Which brings me onto Internet access. This can never be a 'right', because there is the cost of PCs and infrastructure. Somewhere along the line, someone pays. I will resist stating truisms about free lunches.
  • How much information will we allow corporations to gather about us?

    Not a whole lot. Few monitoring and tracking packages survive FDISK and having *BSD or *NIX installed where they used to be.

  • Yeah, but how many assembly-line workers at Ford are gonna know how to install a different OS, let alone use the thing to do anything more than e-mail surf and buy stuff online? But then, maybe jr. will do this while dad's at work and get him fired? Hmmm... sticky wicket.
  • Universal Access to computers doesn't guarantee any sort of social or techno-utopia, but would spread free speech and bring ideas like online voting closer.

    Hmm.. wouldn't this make 'free' speech even more expensive? If your access is controlled by your employer, you better make sure your 'free' speech is aligned with theirs.

    Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet.

    Wow! Just like the Home Shopping Network! Lets just give everyone cable TV..

    - -

  • "Giving away computers to teach people about computer literacy is like giving teenagers pornography to teach them about sex."
    -- Andrei Codrescu

    Intel giving its employees computers I can understand, but Ford? What exactly is Joe Autoworker going to do with a shiny new PC if he doesn't have one already?

    While I love the idea of computer-as-perk, this is clearly a ploy by management to further encroach upon employees' private time. They're already expected to work extra shifts when called, attend company events, etc., and now they're going to be accessible to the Boss 24-7.

    The suits must be laughing their heads off. They've extended the corporate workplace into employees very homes, and the media is lauding them for their generosity!

    Did you stay home sick today? Don't worry; you can still work on the nice shiny PC your employer thoughtfully provided you.

    Are you sometimes away from home when the boss calls? Check your e-mail when you get back, or you're fired.

    Don't have access to an on-site application from home? You soon will, and your boss will be logging your hours. Don't forget; promotions go to "team players"!

  • This is definitely a great moral (and business) idea whose time is coming.

    Another poster suggests that the word above should have been "Morale", I'm not so sure, but I hope so, because the last thing we need in another entitlement program, which is what Jon Katz seems to be arguing for here. But why is there some moral imperative to provide internet access?

    These businesses are providing the computers because it is a good business decision.

    1. More educated employees are better employees.
    2. They can probably provide this benefit without paying payroll taxes.
    3. Your employees children may grow up to become employees themselves (in which case see #1).
    4. It is good for morale, and is good public relations.

    That said, it is also a nice thing to do... (Oops, implied that corporations can be nice, Jon won't like that).

    Computers are increasingly becoming seen as a right, not just an expensive commercial, social or recreational appliance.

    Just because computers are "being seen" as a right, does not mean that they are. First of all "computers" is a very general term, who is going to decide what that entails; Intel or Not, Linux or Windows (Now here's a bandwagon for Bill), AOL or ?? Second, who is to pay for these computers, or all this Universal Access? We cannot even educate our children properly (which, right or not, is certainly a good idea for society), now we are going to waste money providing computers and internet access (not to mention the money spent arguing about it).

    Ford and Intel get it.

    I guess I don't get it. I'm not cool, in, with it. I don't speak Jon's personal language (notice that he never actually defines "Universal Access"). (Sorry, that term irritates me, with it's connotation that there is some 'IT' that only a few 'GET' - those few who agree with the author.)

    It's interesting that corporations, of all entities, rather than educational or political institutions (colleges and universities rarely provide personal computers to students taking these strides). Business grasps that internal communications networks, interconnected business environments and systems that involve the whole family are good for business.

    Now Jon is talking nice about corporations, where will the madness end?

    -
  • Hey, once universal access happens, the Moon will enter the Seventh House, Jupiter will align with Mars, and we'll enter a new age of Enlightenment...

    No, wait, all of that happened and I'm still miserable. Universal access will be a Good Thing but only if the big media players get it and realize that the net doesn't mean one to many like TV, radio, or even the written word. If Big Media continues to insist that they know best, the computer will continue to be just a toy, or worse, a device of corporate propoganda. Right now I see it as 50/50 between what should happen (universal, mostly unrestricted access), and what should never happen (corporate sanitization, very little freedom).

  • the job i'm at now, the sys admins rule with an iron fist... employees are scared to even open up internet explorer.

    sending/receiving email is also a risk, they go through the mail checking to see the attachments.
    the company will fire anyone over anything in the emails that arent "work" related.

    Its a good idea to give employees net access from home, it gives ppl who normally wouldnt have the opportunity to experience the internet outside of work.

    hopefully lots and lots of other companies will follow suit, but atm i just look at my company where the sys admins make the bofh look like barney.
  • Universal access to information is probably a good thing. After all, nobody can destroy the Library of Alexandria if everyone has a copy, nor can someone be denied information on the basis of where they live of how much they make.

    But at what cost? We already know that major corporations pay for marketing information collected from unwitting surfers. Are we willing to bring universal access to humanity at the price of making everyone a target for marketers? Certainly, universal access is a good thing. Eavesdropping and commercial voyeurism are not.

    Think about universal access and about what it takes to bring it about before you mindlessly enthuse about it. Then see if there's another way to finance this venture, one that doesn't depend on turning hapless people into cash cows to be milked by the highest bidder.

  • There's a *major* downside to employer provided... (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:18AM (#1053990)
    Many of us have signed IP agreements. By providing equipment to the employee, that just gives them a MUCH firmer ground for claiming anything you produce on that machine.

    - chum

  • But here's a question...Plse help (Score:3)

    by JonKatz ( 7654 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:22AM (#1053991) Homepage


    Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net. We can provide and upgrade and maintain the equipment, which helps, but some people are already asking us for some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in this? How difficult would this be?"
    I wasn't sure what to tell her, frankly. How hard would this be in an underdeveloped country and are there companies that specialize in this? I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Plse e-mail me and I'll pass it along. Or post here in Threads and I'll pass the word to her and other execs to read through And thanks. I think this is one of those rare ideas that is both morally and economically just a good idea. She did say there would be cultural resistance in some countries, she thought.

  • Crap (Score:3)

    by Bad Mojo ( 12210 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:22AM (#1053992)
    This is a very dangerous line to walk. There's a small step from a company helping it's employees make computer purchases and a company providing a computer and access. And once someone in the corporate world sees some potential for keeping their home employees under their thumb, perhaps corporate owned PCs and network access at home isn't such a bad idea. The corp will own the PC and the access and will have little trouble reading your e-mail and checking out your browsing habits. All, of course, to make sure you aren't violating the terms of your employement and conditions of use of their system.

    Sure, it sounds like I'm an alarmist, but I really see this creeping in so slowly as such a benfit to employees, only to be used against them. Hopefully it'll continue to be corps helping employees buy computers and not some horrible 1984 infestation of speechless netizens.

    Bad Mojo [rps.net]

  • Re:Homeless, Please Help (Score:3)

    by arne ( 23792 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:24AM (#1053993) Homepage
    Good point.

    I doubt the local 24h convinience store will offer their illegal immigrant a free PIII-677 Mhz either.

    It is not universal access it is "if you have a job in a big company" access.

  • Homeless, Please Help (Score:3)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:11AM (#1053994) Journal
    "Homeless, No Work. Need Net. Will Work For Wireless Internet."

  • It's not a win win (Score:3)

    by 348 ( 124012 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:43AM (#1053995) Homepage
    It's not a win win.

    Sure universal access would be great if everyone was connected, if everyone had a workstation, etc. I think it's very good of Ford, Intel and the rest for making this possible for their emplyees and their families.

    Hoewver

    It's not free. Promoting univeral access, especially when viewed as a right will in the lkong run cost Joe Average taxpayer a ton of money. Who benefits? Politicians will claim "look what I did, I brought technology to the masses". Big corporations will claim " Look what we did, we gave all our employees and their families pc's and access". What really will happen, bejhind the scenes is that the politicians will be spending gazillions of our tax dollars to fund another social program. Universal service for access to the homes will be paid for just as it is now as part of the furiously opposed "Schools and Libraries" Bill HR 7317. Basically your telecom bill gets additional taxes levied against it so we can pay for wiring schools and libraries with some token out of date clone pc with a 9600 baud modem and an AOL account.

    Secondly the big businesses (especially tech companies) love this stuff. They will sell more product to the general public and also grab and keem a customer base for the future. The kids. Just like Mcdonalds does with it's happy meals. You get the favort of the kids when their young and you have them for life.

    Universal Access, Just like Universal Service (Schools and Libraries Bill) is bad for the country and bad for the general public. Society is unfortunately made up of different levels of classes, financial and otherwise, having taxpayers pay so that Trailer park Tammy can have broadband brought into the doublewide is not the right way to get the public up to step with todays technology, that's a very socialist approach. This is all to similar to other social reform programs like Welfare, where I pay through taxes enough to support 10 kids a year, not my kids, I never see 'em and I never get a fathers day card. Universal Access will just be another program that has Joe middle class supporting those who are too lazy to work for what they want.

  • Kingston Communications (Score:3)

    by Yaruar ( 125933 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:53AM (#1053996)
    Lets not forget KC who announced today that they are going to put the entire town of Hull online. All explained in this Independa nt Article [independent.co.uk]

    Also if my memory servers me correctly Santa Barbra/Monica (one of those) had a scheme of public access net so that even the homless could voice their opinions and concerns on local forums...

  • harumph (Score:3)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:34AM (#1053997)
    I was all set to post a detailed reply about how the hardware costs of net access are tiny (like, And then I thought, "why bother." After all, most /. readers know the difference between Katz's real articles, and the puff pieces like this which he cranks out when the mortgage is due (or something).

    Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.

    Sound fair?

  • Re:But here's a question...Plse help (Score:3)

    by Alarmist ( 180744 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:34AM (#1053998) Homepage
    Talking to one exec about this, she said, and I quote directly: "But one problem we're already encountering is that many people just can't use computers and have trouble navigating the Net.[...] but some people are already asking us for some education as well, especially in other countries. Do you know anyone who does this or specializes in this? How difficult would this be?"

    Giving universal access to third-world countries and trying to teach people how to use the internet is almost the moral equivalent of bread and circuses. The truth is that many people will be too busy being robbed by the government/rebels/some thug down the street, or too worried about starving to death or dying of some disease to learn much about using this information.

    The internet is not a bandaid. Its introduction into a chaotic society will not suddenly make everyone polite and good to each other. It is a wasted gesture until the society in question is stable enough that the people don't have to worry about starvation, disease, and violence and actually have the resources to learn how to use the information given to them. Until then, it is mostly a feel-good gesture on the part of paternalistic first-world powers.

  • Who gets the access? (Score:4)

    by _vapor ( 55645 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:21AM (#1053999) Homepage
    I'm all for universal access, and I generally think that companies who provide these benefits are doing a Good Thing(tm), but I think we need to consider the reasons behind companies giving out connectivity. I mean, who benefits the most from having access to these technologies? Certainly the employees do, but so do the companies, I would think. Isn't giving everyone a free computer and internet access just another way to tie the employees to their jobs? Imagine a situation where an employer gives everyone a free pager -- good deal, right? Well, that freebie can also be used by the employer to stay in touch with the employees 24 hours a day, so the employees are theoretically "on call" all the time. It's a price they pay for the free technology, but is it worth it if you can't escape your workplace?

  • BS (Score:4)

    by thesparkle ( 174382 ) on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:43AM (#1054000) Homepage
    What "moral" reason is there to hand out free stuff and services? There is none. Katz and Clinton can fix the imaginary "digital divide" with their ivory tower, intellectual, elitist, pigplan of handing out free computers, phone lines, and Internet access. Guess what happens? A bunch of low-end PC's for sale at pawn shops within 24 hours.

    Free net access and low cost PC's are available right now to anyone who wants them. It takes the desire on a person's part to obtain these things, not a government or corporate plan devised by some non-reality dwelling, take-no-responsibility-when-it-does-not-work academic.

    Look what happened to the Inuit indians in Alaska when oil money was liberally handed out in the 1970's. A bunch of drunk Eskimos and broken skimobiles in every driveway. That is immoral. Get real.

  • Ford can F off. (Score:5)

    by Jon Peterson ( 1443 ) <jonNO@SPAMsnowdrift.org> on Tuesday May 23, 2000 @05:43AM (#1054001) Homepage
    Yes, it would be nice if net access existed universally as an infrastructure layer in the same way as paved roads, electricity, gas, drainage, and freshwater do.

    Net access isn't as important as these. Look how few people in the world have access to any of the above. Depressing, isn't it?

    Furthermore, how would I like it if Ford provided me with electricity, Ford built the road between my house and the factory, and Ford supplied me with fresh water.

    No f***ing way would I like it not one little bit. If net access really is this vital layer that like sanitation, street lighting, and chlorinated water will pull civilisation into the next era then I ABSOLUTLEY DO NOT WANT IT CONTROLLED BY CORPORATIONS.

    On the other hand if net access is just a way for the rich and the poor of the west to waste their time and money on sterile information and pointless shopping, then hey roll on McAmerica, give the the huddled masses peecees and bandwidth, all for free, nothing to lose but your minds.

    "Every computer user could shop globally, every retailer sell all over the planet. "

    Yeah nice idea. This is where the rich people on the nice side of the world buy stuff made by the other side of the world. Then, they go on holiday to the poor side and come back to tell all their rich friends how much better the poor side is but what a shame its being spoilt by all those factories and poor people with no rights.

  • Ok, first of all I like being net.connected all of the time. Forget dialin, go leased line.

    But: getting universal access from your employer makes you dependend on that employer for access. And what if you use that access in a way your employer disagrees with. What if you post opinions (in your free time) that offend others who contact your ISP about it (your employer? Or an ISP who forwards this to your employer?). Or what if you want to post something about your own company (whistleblowing ?) that could get you fired. First case I can think of is the Northwest searching employees home computers [slashdot.org] because they were suspected of being involved in actions against Northwest.

    I have been asked to remove stuff on a website totally not related to my job because a user could get there from the homepage of my employer with a number of clicks so the remarks I made there could be seen as being a negative comment on working at my current job (and this in .nl where people are expected to have a life outside work). One reason I am separating my 'being active on Internet' from my work address/webservers.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close