Telecommunications Policy 25 (2001) 281–283

From the editor

Internet access and development

The salience of the digital divide continues to demand attention. Questions of accessibility andaffordability clearly exercise the minds of strategic decision makers in telecommunications publicpolicy fora.Extending the reach of the Internet to the remote and the rural is the central focus of this issue.

It is prefaced by a lively contribution to ‘Policy Forum’ by Maria Cattaui, the Secretary Generalof the ICC. Originally presented at Pacific Telecommunications Council Conference PTC2001 inHawaii, Ms Cattaui’s observations draw attention to the rules of changing regulatory policyinsisting that the various users of telecommunications services must be increasingly prepared tolive and work in a kinetic world with changing ‘rules of the game’. Hers is a clarion call to the‘user’ at all levels to recognise that regulatory rules appropriate for a ‘mechanistic’ regulatoryworld based on order and predictability are fast being relinquished as a more convergent and‘organic’ regulatory order is being ushered in behind the wake of Internet developments. Sheissues the reminder that such a protean world will not arrive unproblematically but will requiresophisticated processes of negotiation between various stakeholder groups. The emergent newworld regulatory order is, to borrow the phrase crafted many years ago, a world of ‘negotiated(regulatory) order’.Cattaui’s message, primarily but not exclusively focused on the changing rules of the game as

they affect business, is paralleled by Lentz and Oden’s detailed study of the close links betweentelecommunications manufacturing and service industries and other industries in one of the mostdeprived regions of the United States}the Mississippi Delta. A symbiosis between telecommu-nications and other industries leads these authors to conclude that}absent leading telecommu-nications and service firms in rural communities such as the Delta Region}the result will be lossof overall competitiveness with dire consequences for business growth and the development andsustenance of public service institutions}a digital divide with resulting digital (and overall)deprivation. For Lentz and Oden, developing a strategic and comprehensive approach to fosteringtelecommunications industry growth is a necessary and sufficient condition for wider industrygrowth in this region. A regional telecommunications infrastructure policy spanning the Deltastates is essential as is the development of a ‘sophisticated community of users’.Touching again on the theme of rural telecommunications development, Ramirez considers

why Canada}a nation as he insists, which ‘boasts one of the most advanced ICT infrastructures’,is experiencing severe developmental lags in parts of its remote hinterland. Summarising theresults of three case-studies, Ramirez provides ‘strategic policy and organizational insights’ intothe harnessing of ICTs by rural and remote communities.

0308-5961/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 3 0 8 - 5 9 6 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 4 - 0

He confronts the question of whether and how other communities can benefit from thelessons (largely positive) learned from the three communities under study. Such transfer}to be successful}will require the development of effective ‘learning processes’ involving thedevelopment of ‘community trust’ in local organisations, exploring the benefits and limita-tions of ICTs, policy incentive programmes, building a team of local championsand importantly establishing effective network relationships between them and policymakers.Strover’s paper again focuses on the United States, targeting the link between economic

development and telecommunications infrastructure. Recognising the national significance ofInternet developments, she stresses the peculiar problems of the rural region with large sections ofthe population ‘falling through the net’ to their economic peril. Strover’s concentration is on theselected states of Texas, Iowa, West Virginia and Louisiana with the explicit recognition that theymay be paradigmatic of developments on a much broader telecommunications public policycanvas.Her central focus is Internet access}and, all-too-frequently the lack of it. Strover

concludes that aspirations often outrun pious rhetoric. While the concept of ‘rural connecti-vity’ is fast acquiring motherhood status}the end does not always correlate with the means.Current regulatory policies focusing on the systems goal of greater competition have notfostered the viability of the rural region. Her plea is for a transcendence of the ‘normalmarket place’ mechanism in favour of allocative processes more clearly targeted on the ruraldomain. It will be interesting to judge the fate of such well-placed sentiments as the newAdministration brings its particular focus and influence to bear on the telecommunications policyprocess.The paper by Guillen and Suarez provides a change of focus and a significant reminder that the

development of the Internet and the ‘Internet habit’ have not developed uniformly across nationalboundaries}by extension we might find similar divergencies from any norm across regions andsub-national domains.Analysis of data collected on two matched pairs of countries: Ireland and Singapore, Argentina

and Spain leads to the useful conclusion that there is systematic variation between these countriesin terms of the numbers of Internet ‘users’ and ‘hosts’}Internet development is predicted to behigher in countries predisposed toward entrepreneurship and investment and armed with ademocratic political system. Privatisation and competition pale by comparison as the engines ofInternet development. The speed of Internet development on a worldwide basis is seen ascontingent}no iron law of development exists.Many factors are, in fact, deemed to be necessary for the development of strong and

growing Internet take up and usage. These include (apart from those already men-tioned above): effective telecommunications public policy; per capita income, con-ditions favourable to the growth of entrepreneurship and, currently proficiency in English.Suggestively, the authors enter a plea for greater research to aid the understanding of this array offactors.If the present issue demonstrates nothing else, it provides a useful series of contributions

outlining the complex nature of Internet provision and usage. As ever, simple solutions to theproblem of the digital divide are probably chimerical}in the words of the contemporary sage,

D. Pitt / Telecommunications Policy 25 (2001) 281–283282

while simple solutions to such complex issues are characteristically seductive, they are inevitablywrong.

Doug PittDepartment of Human Resource Management, University of Strathclyde

The Graham Hills Building, 50 Richmond StreetGlasgow G1 1XU, UK

E-mail address: d.pitt@strath.ac.uk

D. Pitt / Telecommunications Policy 25 (2001) 281–283 283