Slashdot Mirror
Universal Access
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
u s vehicle crowd).
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-conscio
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.
Care to tell me how having a computer will make someone who was once illiterate literate ?
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 ?
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, I mean raking it in - geez, ever hear about the profit margins on SUV's being on the order of 10K per unit?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...PeoplePC , without the engaging salesman.
l ] allows participants to obtain PC's by paying
The enRamp program [http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-202-1798138.htm
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.
--
+&x
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. 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.
--
+&x
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.
--
+&x
-jpowers
-jpowers
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.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
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.
Better schools and teachers?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
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.
"All the things one has forgotten scream for help in dreams". Elias Canetti
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
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.
Got Rhinos?
...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!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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?
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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.
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?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Plus, what's gonna happen when Joe {insert corporation name here} Employee uses a company-purchased PC to traffic in kiddie porn?
s 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?
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-censor
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.
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
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..
- -
air and light and time and space
"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"!
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
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.
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?
-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).
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
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.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
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.
www.alarmist.org
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
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.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
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
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
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.
Copyright 1998 arne Verbatim copying and distribution is permited as long as this message is preserved
"Homeless, No Work. Need Net. Will Work For Wireless Internet."
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.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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...
Working for the (other) man
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?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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?
www.poak.net
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.
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.
-----
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 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.
The Virtual Bookcase: book reviews