Regional Preparatory Meeting of the IGF

Transcription

Panel 1: How to reach the next billion users?

Ernesto Majó: Good morning. During this first session we will approach the subject of how to reach the next billion Internet users. The panel will be moderated by Valeria Jordán of ECLAC, and our panel will be made up by Bernadette Lewis of the CTU, Carlos Alfonso of RITS Brazil, Matías Perdomo of AHCIET, and Olga Cavalli of the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Valeria Jordán: Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to this panel where we will discuss an issue that is extremely important for the development of information: the issue of access. This is a very complex issue which involves different aspects such as the development of telecommunications infrastructure and networks; how to facilitate access to this infrastructure and networks on the part of the population; the possibility of obtaining these services; the terminal devices that allow their utilization; community access; the population’s ability to use this technology; the ability of the working force to innovate and generate applications that will be considered relevant and used by the population and that will therefore help broaden access; and, finally, the development of applications and content that are inclusive and created in the different languages used by the population. Without further ado, I leave you with the panelists who will discuss many of these aspects in greater detail.

Our first presenter is Olga Cavalli, advisor to the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a specialist on Information and Communications Technologies and Public Policies and Regulations.

Olga Cavalli: Good morning and thank you for this invitation. The words of Engineer María Simon, who I’ve recently had the pleasure to become acquainted with at the meetings having to do with the IGF and eLAC (the Regional Plan for the Information Society) could not be more appropriate to begin our panel. I believe that Maria conceptualized quite a few things that are relevant to the issue of access and to developing countries and regions such as ours.

The idea is to debate and exchange ideas on how to reach the next billion users. I have brought some teaching aids that I use with my students. If you allow me to do so, I will abandon to some extent my role as government advisor and assume that of a teacher in order to perhaps provide a more concrete conceptualization of certain aspects: Where are these billion users? Who are they? Where should we look for them? How should we reach them?

I’ve brought a map that I always use with my students and which I find very shocking. This is a map I’ve even seen hanging at the ITU when I visited their Geneva offices a year ago. The lines you see on the map represent links between the different continents and regions. The thicker lines represent greater installed bandwidth, while the thinner lines represent less bandwidth. There is a correlation between the thickness of the lines and installed bandwidth capacity. I believe that this map is self-explanatory and quite clearly shows that our region is located within an area that has much less connectivity. The data I will now show may have varied slightly (it was obtained last year), but in fact 90% of the total installed bandwidth is installed between developed countries. I think this is evident and, regardless of whether we are speaking of 90, 85 or 92 percent, I think we all know that the great majority of connections provide north-north connectivity and that the south is less connected. Unless something awful were to happen, our geographic location will not change and we will continue to be located in the southernmost south, particularly in the case of countries such as Uruguay or Argentina and Chile which are the southernmost countries in the world. So, where are our billion users? Well, now we have an approximate idea of where our next billion users are located.

Another interesting factor which I thought was worthy of mention is what our region is like as compared to the rest of the world. Our region has some special characteristics: it is a region with a high degree of inequality: of all the regions around the world, it is the region having the greatest inequality in terms of wealth distribution.

I’ve brought some Gini coefficients to show you. Without discussing the details of how this coefficient is calculated, let me just say that a Gini coefficient of 1 (one) represents perfect inequality (a country where a single individual has all the income), while a Gini coefficient of 0 (zero) represents perfect equality (a hypothetic, ideal country where everyone has exactly the same income).

This does not tell us whether a country is rich or poor, but rather how income is distributed within that country. As we can see, Latin America has the highest Gini coefficients − 55 to 60 (obviously depending on each country), while the minimums are between 30 and 40. What does the fact that Latin America has the highest Gini coefficient mean? It means inequality in the distribution of income, inequality in the distribution of infrastructure, inequality in the access to education. In our countries, resources are unequally distributed. This is a characteristic of our region in general.

For this reason making plans in Latin America is more complex. I remember that, when Argentina was beginning to study the One Laptop per Child project, Argentina was considered to be too rich for the project. Curiously, some regions of Argentina appear to belong to a developed country, but one has only to walk a few kilometers to realize that not very far away the situation is quite different and even more so in more suburban or more rural areas.

Thus, in addition to its geography, our region is located further south. Plus, we must also to consider other ingredients that have to do with the distribution of income and the economies that have developed in our countries.

I’ve also brought you some more data that will allow us to see where our next billion users might be found. These figures represent Internet users, not penetration rates; they represent absolute numbers of users and correspond to the year 2007. As we can see, Asia has a large number of users, but we also know that this continent has a very large population. Latin America has approximately 110 million Internet users − users in general, regardless of whether they are connected through broadband or other technologies.

This other figure provides us a with a better approximation to reality, as it shows Internet penetration rates by region. As we can see, the global average penetration rate is 18 percent, Latin America has a penetration rate of approximately 20 percent, while developed regions − North America and Europe − have penetrations ranging from 40 to 60 percent. Asia has an average penetration rate of 11 percent, but we all know that the country with the highest degree of broadband penetration is Korea, which is a country that has achieved great development and significantly increased its connectivity so, for this reason, generally speaking the Asian average does not reflect the situation that exists in each of the individual countries.

Another issue that we have discussed quite a bit during past meetings, particularly at the ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology meeting held in May, is that there are different types of Internet connectivity: broadband connectivity is not the same as dial-up connectivity. Broadband connectivity allows users to access certain services, whereas a user having more limited access may be able to access fewer services or applications. It would seem that there is a new divide within the divide, the one that exists between those who are connected and have greater bandwidth and those who are connected but have less bandwidth.

Now I will show a list of the top countries with the highest Internet broadband penetration rates, those countries that have penetrations rates greater than 20-30 percent. If we disregard the Bermuda Islands, we can see that the majority of the countries that appear on the list are developed countries. The list also includes South Korea, which is the Asian country with the highest broadband penetration rate. I think this clearly shows that this is where the largest numbers of users are connected, and we need to focus on these regions and not on others.

Now let me show you some data for Latin America. These data were taken from the Cisco Broadband Barometer, which is published on the website of the Argentine National Communications Commission.

/No audio was recorded from 10:43 to 11:07./
/From 11:08 to 12:55 the interpreter’s voice was recorded. The following is an edited transcription of her words:/

All the data I’ve presented gives us an idea as to where our next billion users are located and what needs to be done. I don’t mean to speak exclusively of Argentina but, by way of reference, let me show you that the asymmetry that I mentioned is not just regional but also internal to each country. Event though Argentina is a country with an extremely vast geography, of the total number of the broadband connections, approximately 70-80 per cent are between Buenos Aires and its surroundings, while the remaining 20-30 percent are distributed over the remaining areas of the country. This can also be seen in the other countries of the region.

We have now identified our billion users; we have identified where they are, what their geography is like, and how this factor can aid or hinder our progress. At the Tunis Summit we agreed that we wanted to build an inclusive Information Society, one which would promote development and include all individuals; therefore, our challenge is access for all. In my personal view, of all the topics that were debated at the IGF, − access, security, openness and critical resources, in the developing countries access is the most important, as it is the basic layer on which we must build our contents, our infrastructure and diversity. If we don’t have access it will be very difficult to debate...

/End of English audio recording./

/No audio was recorded from 12:56 to 14:10./
 
I would also like to ask a few questions, and I have no doubt my fellow panelists will later help me answer them or provide us with some ideas, perhaps somewhat innovative, as to how else these actions − some of which are in different stages of execution − can be implemented or advance towards the future.

In my opinion, installing within our countries access points for ISPs has been a wonderful idea in terms of sharing infrastructure. Some of these access points operate on a cooperative basis, others on a commercial basis, but I think that they have proved to be essential for Internet development and, in addition, for allowing the market to diversify and smaller companies to gain space, not only major Internet access providers but also smaller ISPs.

Ariel, is there a regional Internet exchange point for our region? Could such an exchange point exist? Not yet, there isn’t. Well, I believe that this would be essential for improving access in the region. This is something to consider. I believe that a regional access point would allow us to improve the potential for providing access to our citizens. If we take a look at connectivity within our region, we can see that it is easier to connect from Miami to Buenos Aires than it is from Buenos Aires to Lima, and this is because there is not enough connectivity installed within the region.

Community access centers are one of the means that have allowed bringing our people to the Internet, to exchange information and build their businesses and activities through connectivity. However, not all initiatives have been sustainable in time. I think that community centers are fundamental for providing access to the population, but only if they are sustainable and can maintain the initial investment, if the community benefits from their installation, but also if this is a space that can be relied upon from the moment it is installed onwards. Therefore, in this sense, I believe that it is not only the responsibility of the community center itself, but that a strong public-private alliance is required in order to make these centers sustainable in time. In my opinion, sustainability is an important challenge.

As to universal service funds, I don’t know if you remember, but these were created during a wave of privatizations that took place approximately ten years ago, as a way to provide subsidies for areas that were not very profitable − particularly telephone services. I believe that during the past ten years the profile of these services has changed dramatically so that, in my personal opinion, perhaps these funds should now focus more on Internet access than on telephone services, perhaps focus not so much on last mile access − which may be wireless, using wireless technologies that have improved enormously − but more on subsidizing national links, which are expensive, particularly in areas that do not yet have much connectivity.

Finally, I think we must consider mobile telephony: the new billion Internet users are today’s mobile telephone users. We are all aware of the great success that mobile telephony has had around the globe. Simply by way of an example, Argentina has a mobile telephony penetration rate between 80 and 90 percent. All these mobile telephone users are potential Internet users. Will mobile telephony networks support the increased traffic that would result if every user decided to have 3G or greater bandwidth in their mobile phones? This is a question that needs to be considered.

The availability of low-cost devices makes what Ida mentioned yesterday a fantastic idea. It is a project aimed at inclusion, and also a project for achieving access through low-cost devices. Mobile telephones could also become this type of devices. However, does everyone know how to use these devices? Do parents know how to use them? Do teachers know how to use them? Is education in the use of these devices also a barrier to access? Or is simply having the devices enough?

As to the frequencies available for wireless services, have they all been taken? Are they available in every country? I think that Wi-Fi has proved to be an interesting tool for inclusion: it’s easy to install, it’s inexpensive, it doesn’t require the installation of wiring, and civil works are practically inexistent.

To conclude, I would like to say that there are several arenas where this issue can be discussed. As I said yesterday, I believe that it is important to become involved. I think that LACNIC is a magnificent example of an arena for debating, for creating ideas, and for building opinions in relation to this issue.

Another interesting proposal refers to the possibility of remote participation at the IGF. Yesterday I said that Geneva is very far away, but let me say that Hyderabad, India, is even further. As Raul observed, not many of us will be able to attend the meeting and, for this reason, together with the people at the Diplo Foundation, we are trying to create remote participation hubs within our countries. I have personally taken upon myself the initiative of creating one in Argentina, so perhaps some of my students or other colleagues that cannot attend the meeting will be able to participate remotely. This is but one of many initiatives.

ICANN is also involved in several outreach initiatives. As Pablo is here, take advantage of him and let him tell you about these initiatives. I think this is another space for participation, as is the eLAC, in which we have also implemented many ideas.

Finally, let me show you the humble efforts we carry out during our regular meetings at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I know that the gender balance you can see in this photograph is awful and needs to be worked on, but the table you see in the photo is a completely multi-participative forum where we try to jointly find issues of interest. Thank you.

Valeria Jordán: Thank you, Olga, you have clearly illustrated our access problems, namely that access is concentrated within urban areas and, within those areas, within the higher-income segments. The poorest members of our communities are being excluded from the Information Society; therefore, public policies must focus on these individuals implementing different solutions such as the ones that have been presented today, among them community access centers and a revision of universal access funds.

On the other hand, it is clear that the divide is not only the result of access to technology or lack thereof, but it also relates to the quality of the technology that we use. In this sense, the divide truly represents a dilemma for our region. Therefore, in relation to the access issue, the challenge seems to be how to reduce structural asymmetries.

Now let me introduce Matías Rodríguez, Special Project Manager at ANTEL, Uruguay, and advisor to AHCIET (the Ibero-American Association of Research Centers and Telecommunication Enterprises), who specializes in telecommunications management and high technology law.

Matías Rodríguez: Thank you, Valeria. Good morning everyone, I see many friendly faces in the audience. It is a great pleasure for me to meet you all and I would also like to welcome those of you who have come from abroad: I wish you a happy stay in my country. Before I begin I would like to clarify that I am here on this panel in representation of AHCIET and not of the company for which I work, which is ANTEL. This means that I represent the industry. AHCIET is the Ibero-American Association of Research Centers and Telecommunication Enterprises and for 26 years the organization has prided itself on being a meeting point for the Ibero-American communications community. Recently, based on a modification of our statutes, we have welcomed other actors involved in our industry. Today we have members such as Nokia, Siemens, Huawei, Globo do Brasil, the EFE agency − organizations that were not traditionally AHCIET members − and that are providing us with a slightly different vision and broadening our perspective of different phenomena which in the past we dealt with almost exclusively from within the telecommunications paradigm. Therefore, the paradigm that you will perceive from me is that of the Industry and, from what I’ve been hearing, I’m afraid you will find it somewhat heretic. I know that sometimes heresy has helped advance knowledge, so I hope that my comments will be useful in triggering further debate.

I would like to begin by analyzing the title under which this panel has been summoned: How to reach the next billion users. Well, I have an issue with this idea. I checked with the sources − the minutes of the IGF Secretariat − to find out why this subject was chosen and found that there is a history behind it. Perhaps the concept of Internet universalization − which was the original concept − would have been more compatible, but negotiations conclude with this type of thing and therefore today we have been summoned to speak of how the next billion Internet users will be connected to the Internet.

Personally, this title allows me to infer three things. First, that there is a sense of urgency; second, that the focus is on the next billion users, on those that we are now incorporating; and third, that the emphasis is on the verb “to connect.” In all sincerity, I don’t agree with any of the three.

Let me begin with the sense of urgency. If we accept, as I personally do, that the first milestone in this transition towards the Information Society, at least from a formal point of view, was the ministerial meeting of the Group of Seven held in Brussels in February 1995 during which the world’s most powerful economists defined that, until the end of the century, the international community’s main objective was to achieve a seamless transition towards the Information Society, we must also accept that thirteen years have since gone by and that during these thirteen years we have witnessed what is probably one of the most colossal social engineering operations in the history of mankind. We are speaking of the 1300 million individuals who have been connected to the Internet during this period. In other words, I don’t have the feeling that we are doing things incorrectly. In addition, I feel that we are relatively close to reaching the cruising speed in terms of growth rates. I am not saying that there is a limit to this growth − history has proven that all limits are meant to be exceeded −, but it would seem that we are doing quite well. Internet growth rates for 2000 / 2008 are quite respectable. Considering that during these seven years global growth was over 300 percent, in the South American region it was approximately 600 percent, in Central America close to 800 percent, and in the Caribbean close to 1000 percent. Let’s put things into perspective: apparently we are performing our duties appropriately.

Second, sometime during the year 2005 we exceeded the first billion users. Yesterday Aída commented that XO computer number 100 thousand was recently issued. Although it’s not possible to know for a fact who the actual individual was and this information simply represents a statistical prototype, statistics suggest that the one billionth Internet user at global level was a 24 year old lady of Chinese nationality living in Shanghai. In any case, according to WorldStats, this happened in 2005. I saw in Olga’s presentation that, according to the same source, as at 30 June we are nearing one and a half billion Internet users (1.46 billion users). According to the OIT, by the end of 2007 this figure was approximately 1.35 billion. This means that we continue to advance, and to advance quite a bit. Thus, we should not feel a sense of urgency but instead a sense that we are fulfilling our duty. And we are fulfilling it quite well.

Second, the focus on the next billion users. This is where the paradigm that I cannot but mention most frontally clashes with the one I perceive in the title. In my opinion, the next billion Internet users is not a problem, because they are already connected. These billion Internet users are already part of the global digital network − and this is based on the OIT figures corresponding to the year 2007, the updated numbers provided by WorldStats are even higher. But if in 2007 there were 1.35 billion Internet users and there were 3.1 billion mobile telephone users, then the next billion users was already connected.

Third, the emphasis on the verb “to connect,” I don’t believe this. Except if the Internet paradigm were to admit a single type of terminal device, that is to say except if all of us are laptop or desktop PC fanatics and unable to consider individuals that use different types of terminals, at this moment the telecommunications industry has almost 4.5 billion users. This is the reason why I said earlier that this is a matter of perspective and paradigm.

I speak in representation of the business sector, but I work at a state company. The business sector has reached the US$ 4 per day segment, has adapted, has lowered its OPEX in order to deal with traffic that is sometimes more than 100 million times greater than before, with much lower ARPUs, with incomes equal to or less than US$ 4 per day − between US$ 2 and US$ 4 − which is the segment that we entered after 3.2 billion users were connected. Within this segment, ARPUs are extremely low; however, India continues to incorporate six million users a month. So, according to this digital paradigm, there are already more than three billion connected users. Therefore, it is not a question of technological barriers, nor of barriers having to do with investment in infrastructure, nor of coverage. It is a question of relevance.

A short time ago, while he was launching his project aimed at reaching the second billion clients in India, Bill Gates mentioned that it is not a question of prices but a question of relevance. Although I do not agree with him on the price issue, I do agree that it is a question of relevance, a question of making the Internet relevant for everyone.

If, for example, there are individuals that have mobile phones with Internet capability but do not use them, one of the many reasons for which they don’t is that they are not sufficiently relevant for them. These are governance problems but also concrete technological problems and we know it: multilingualism, which is about cultural contexts and not about translators, is a difficult issue but not impossible to approach and is already being dealt with; internationalization of the domain name system; migration to IPv6, which we talked about yesterday. And they are deficiencies. Olga spoke about universal service funds. It is true that they were basically born in economies that opted for privatization, but there are also universal service funds in some countries that did not privatize their utilities and there are even talks of implementing these funds in other countries. The industry accepts this obligation: universal service funds are basically maintained through a deduction on service providers’ income.

However, when the World Bank and Regulatel prepared this study towards the end of 2006, in Latin America alone US$ 2.35 billion were immobilized − and I use the term immobilized because I believe in the law and I don’t think that anyone is using these funds for unauthorized purposes. Public administration is governed by the principle of speciality: actions are limited to those specified in the rule. Universal service funds are not authorized to spend their money on items other than those expressly included in their statement, and therefore those funds are immobilized. So, if we consider that US$ 2.5 billion are frozen inside safety boxes o in government bank accounts in Latin America − and US$ 5 billion worldwide − we realize that it isn’t a matter of investments either: the industry has generated more than enough money. It is a question of efficiency, of governance and of relevance.

Today we are debating access from the point of view of connections, and this is basically a task that must be carried out by the industry. Perhaps in the future, once the industry slows down after reaching the fifth billion users, this issue may need to be approached by those who are currently devoted to other tasks, but today it is being developed by an industry that has already reached 4.5 billion users. The segment we are now approaching comprises 1.5 billion persons living on US$ 2-4 per day that will increase mobile telephone penetration or connection to the digital network from today’s global rate of 50 percent to 75 per cent. In 2003 mobile telephones reached their first billion, in 2005 their second billion, in 2007 their third billion, and it is estimated that this fourth billion and a half individuals will be reached in 2011. And let’s be clear: we are talking about poor individuals averaging US$ 3 per day.

This is where the convergence phenomenon kicks in. This is a process in which the telecommunications industry is completely involved with today. I need to ask you to have faith in me: by offering packages, by combining services, convergence is what will transform mobile telephone users into Internet users.

The industry sees a huge business opportunity at the bottom of the pyramid. Perhaps this may not sound very nice from other points of view, but it is an objective truth that must be considered when debating solutions to important problems. Ever since Prahalad, for the telecommunications industry the bottom of the pyramid represents a very interesting business opportunity. It is estimated that the potential spending capacity of the four billion individuals that make up the bottom of the pyramid is somewhere near US$ 52 billion , US$ 28 billion in Asia, US$ 14 billion in Latin America, approximately US$ 5 billion in Africa, and US$ 6 billion in Eastern Europe. The industry is quickly adapting in order take advantage of these business opportunities.

Another factor is that stock exchanges love the “bottom of the pyramid” speech. An article published by the Wall Street Journal saying that such and such company grew by such and such percentage in such and such “bottom of the pyramid” country raises the company’s stock prices, and this also helps the industry to grow. If you need an example, just take a look at the number of times the “next billion” is mentioned. All you need to do is Google “next billion” and among the results you will find Microsoft, Dell and its next green billion, you will find Motorola and its agreement with GCM for the for the next billion handsets, not to mention Nokia Siemens connecting five billion users which is a lovely project worth reading about, Ericsson, Intel and its new Atom line, the WiMAX platform for the next billion... everyone is talking about the next billion. Other industries such as the banking industry which, in order to be able to get a hold of their part of the bottom of the pyramid business opportunity, depend on the telecommunications industry reaching this next billion before them, are also talking about the next billion.

To all of the above we must add some concrete elements − the availability of prepaid cards, the inclusion of Internet access in telecommunications services packages, banking services, promoting the migration to higher-end, more complex terminal devices. Today, in our countries − in mine, in Chile, in Brazil − I estimate that approximately 60 per cent of mobile telephones have Internet capability (even if it is only through WAP), so why do 40 percent of these terminals not have this technology? Because, during the early years, sales strategies basically targeted the bottom of the pyramid and emphasis was placed on selling very low-end mobile telephones. Today nobody sells these telephones any more. Those of you who live in these countries can take a look at the very scarce offer that exists in terms of low-end mobile phones: in my country this offer is already inexistent. The industry is promoting a migration to mobile telephones that incorporate Internet access. The industry is lowering costs in every way that it can. A few months ago, during the Global Industry Leaders’ Forum that was held in Pattaya, Thailand, simultaneously with the Global Regulators’ Forum, one of the topics that was discussed is what a good friend of mine refers to as “Total Sharing” − that is to say sharing even clients, sharing passive infrastructure, sharing active infrastructure, sharing nodes, sharing spectrum, sharing everything − in order to lower OPEX, in order to adapt to the low profitability levels associated with this part of humanity, innovation, etc.

My conclusion is that the focus must be on convincing, on providing relevance, on helping productive sectors and social sectors so that they are able to find on the Internet means to satisfy their needs. I sincerely hope that at the end of the meeting, during the Q&A round, we will be able to expand on some of these ideas.

Valeria Jordán: Thank you Matías for sharing with us a very interesting vision, which I am sure will give rise to much debate during the Q&Q session.

Let me now introduce Bernardette Lewis, Secretary General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, an organization that has the mission of establishing the necessary framework to ensure inhabitants equal access to information and communications technology, as well as to ensure that effective benefits can be derived from their utilization.

/Although Bernadette Lewis’ presentation was made in English, the following is a backtranslation of the interpreter’s words./

Bernadette Lewis: Thank you very much. I am really honored to be a part of this panel which is discussing how to reach the next billion users.

I would like to begin my observations by establishing that the digital divide is closely related to the economic divide. The individuals that are connected to the Internet today are those that have the economic means to do so. Other panelists before me have already pointed out the inequality in the distribution of wealth both at global level as well as within the countries of our region and, as we will see, in many ways those who are not connected are the less privileged.

When considering how to reach the next billion users, we notice that a large part of these users will be the urban underprivileged and individuals living in rural communities. Now then, poverty is a multifaceted and complex issue. For this reason, we have the responsibility of working towards improving the conditions for the less privileged, but also − adopting a very pragmatic approach − we must recognize and understand that they will always be with us and that any point of view we adopt will have to be adapted in order to be appropriate and relevant to the situations that exist in our different urban and rural areas. Our approach needs to be adapted so that it will be relevant to the situations we find in South America or the Caribbean. There is no unique “prepackaged” solution, but instead we need to find appropriate approaches that we can use for each set of circumstances.

Olga gave us an excellent general summary of what can be done to expand our reach and promote connectivity, among others, through the use of telephone infrastructure. However, the development of infrastructure must be accompanied by a series of considerations and complementary activities. If these aspects are not considered, physical access alone would be completely futile.

The first thing that I would like to add is the fact that access must be provided for a specific purpose. We cannot simply decide “OK, let’s provide broadband access to that community” and believe that this will automatically benefit the community. This is not how it works at all, and perhaps broadband was not even the most appropriate technology for that particular situation. For example, yesterday we heard an excellent presentation about the One Laptop per Child project in Uruguay. This is a program that provides connectivity with a purpose: that of providing education for children and their families.

Second, we are talking about access. I’ve heard my colleagues speak about broadband, but the need to use the appropriate technology must also be considered. An important part of those next billion users will be underprivileged, illiterate individuals and, therefore, we must now consider the Internet from the point of view of its content − content that is presented in written form − and the use of different languages. Let’s consider an extremely poor community whose members are concerned with how to survive from day to day, what they will eat, where they will live, what will happen with their health... perhaps for this community the best option in terms of telecommunications could be radio or television, as these media preserve the oral and visual traditions and can be used to educate the population in health and hygiene matters or to provide training on better agricultural methods and procedures, etc. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the selected tool or technology must be appropriate for the situation of the target population.

Third, when providing access and connecting those next billion individuals we need to consider that access costs money, so we need to make sure that access will translate into positive impacts on development. For example, in the case of a highly literate community that has a local industry (be it ceramics, weaving, handicrafts or any other), access could allow broadening their market and reaching a broader community. As we can see, the question of providing access that will effectively benefit the community is something that needs to be considered.

Fourth, I would like to speak about content − about the need for appropriate and relevant content. OK, so we provide access. But what will we offer to those individuals who will have access to all this information? Speaking about the Caribbean, unfortunately, through the course of the years, we have witnessed an erosion of our cultural values because of a lack of readily available indigenous content. The availability of well-packaged content created in the Northern hemisphere which propagates values that are not consistent with our local identity is not offset by indigenous content. Thus, we need to pay a great deal of attention to content packaging, as it is relevant to our situation.

Another aspect that I would like to mention is that of ICTs for development. I would like to say that in order to connect the next billion users I am thinking of our educational institutions. There is a need for research programs that focus on local issues − indigenous research − and I believe that it is absolutely necessary to connect our academic institutions.

Let me give you an example that I have been using quite a lot lately. The quality of the cocoa that is produced in Trinidad and Tobago places it among the best in the world, regardless of which I always buy Belgian chocolate. I do this because Belgian chocolate is superior to ours because the Belgians have invested in the transformation of our raw material and implemented value-adding programs that allow them to sell us their products. I think that there is an urgent need to explore our native raw materials, that we need to carry out research that will allow us to transform these native raw materials into products that will be of great value in the eyes of the rest of the world. I believe that connecting our educational institutions is absolutely essential, it needs to be done without further delay so that we may develop these research capabilities. The minister mentioned this very explicitly when she spoke of the need for this type of activities. For this reason, we will work with the aim of reaching those billion individuals, but I also believe that, if we want ICT to work in our benefit, it is imperative to invest in local research by connecting our institutions so that they may share information. This is of critical importance.

I would like to conclude simply by saying that technology is wonderful when it works, but when it doesn’t it can be a problem. Consequently, I want to repeat once again the need to connect for a purpose, to highlight the fact that we not only need to provide access, but that the communities must be involved in the use of these technologies. Second, we must only use appropriate technologies. We need to use only technologies that are useful, valuable and makes sense. Of course, content must also be considered. Finally, we must connect our academic institutions so that we can truly advance those ICTs for development. Thank you very much.

Valeria Jordán: Thank you, Bernadette. Let me now introduce you to Carlos Afonso, Executive Director of the Information Network for the Third Sector, an institution that focuses precisely on developing access within the least privileged sectors of the population, and also a member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.

Carlos Afonso: Thank you very much. It is an honor for us to be participating in this panel and to have been able to cooperate with this initiative. I must thank LACNIC for this effort and for providing us with a very important opportunity for beginning our discussions at regional level in preparation for the Internet Governance Forum and debating all aspects relating to this process.

Up to the moment, five main items have been selected to be a part of the public forum agenda for the third forum − which will be held in December in Hyderabad, India. The first is how to reach the next billion users; another is the relationship between cybersecurity and trust, that is to say the trust that is necessary to utilize and provide services through the Internet; another is that of critical Internet infrastructure, a subject that has always been controversial and an area that also focuses on the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 (which was the object of yesterday’s discussion) and also on the issue of Internet logical infrastructure governance; yet another is an evaluation of the forum process up to now; finally, there is a generic item which we could call “Miscellaneous” but which has in fact been given the name of “Emerging Issues”. This is more or less a general summary of the discussion, and I believe that these five issues will also be treated at this meeting.

In relation to the next billion users, up to now the official IGF document states that the focus will be access and multilingualism. These two aspects open the doors to many others. For example, there is talk of emphasizing low-cost access, access for the disabled − which is a very important issue and in relation to which we find many difficulties for its implementation in different projects, at community centers, etc. We have discovered, for example, that the equipment used by the visually impaired are proprietary equipment that operate only with proprietary software and are much more expensive than our “typical” equipment. This is a problem of the industry, and one that must be solved. For example, today, in Brazil, installing a Braille printer at a public Internet access center − a telecenter − costs a minimum of 10 thousand dollars. A scanner that allows reading a document, performing OCR and translating the text into audio costs even more. So, how do we equip telecenters with this technology? How do we train people so that they know how to use this equipment? These are very relevant questions.

Obviously, the preparatory process for the Forum also involves the discussion of issues having to do with human development, particularly with local development, an aspect that Bernadette has already spoken about; the matter of the preservation or the guarantees for the preservation of cultural diversity; and an additional aspect that is beginning to receive strong attention which is that of access and connectivity as a right and not as something that will simply happen or something that the market provides − it is a right just as electricity, drinking water, access to dwelling, etc. In some countries this is already being discussed at a legal level with the aim of including it at constitutional level, and this is an important aspect as well.

As to my colleagues’ presentations, Olga highlighted the matter of unequal distribution, an issue which is indeed quite shocking. In our case, Brazil also exhibits these characteristics, if we can call them that, because of the scale of its geography and population and because of the enormous inequality we have in terms of income at regional level... there are all sorts of examples. In Brazil there is a very interesting situation that has to do with the unequal distribution of resources among users who already have broadband connections − and of course in some places referring to these connections as “broad” would appear to be a joke.

In Portugal, at this moment you can purchase broadband at a cost of 0.5 euro per megabit per second; in Sao Paulo, which represents Brazil’s most developed society, the cost is 5 euros per megabit per second. However, in the North of Brazil, in Manaus, it costs 50 euros per megabit per second, a figure which is ten times higher than in Sao Paulo and 100 times higher than in Portugal.

And how are these prices set? We haven’t the slightest idea. In our countries, the regulation of data transmission is separate from the regulation of telecommunications. This is a good thing, but it does have certain consequences in that these companies are not included within the scope of price regulations: this is why we have no idea how these prices are set. What we do know is that they are to a great extent established based on the fact that they correspond to either cartelized or monopolized operations. Brazil has been divided into three vast regions which we call hereditary telecommunications captaincies − by analogy with the captaincies that existed during the imperial period, which were donated for life to those who would be the owners of the territory. (Laughter)

In relation to the urgency that Matías mentioned earlier, I believe that, if the business sector fails to see the urgency of this matter, in some regions it will be left behind, as communities are feeling the need to accelerate the process and to universalize access.

A very interesting example of this is the Duas Barras municipality in the state of Rio de Janeiro. One of the 92 municipalities in Rio de Janeiro, Duas Barras is an example of a municipality that has decided to take the matter into its own hands and install a community network that is open to the entire population. These networks are funded in different ways, one of them being that in order to receive free access a user must not have any outstanding municipal taxes. This has in itself proven to be more than sufficient to finance and justify the costs incurred by the municipality for installing the network.

To continue with the example, Duas Barras installed its network and hired a 2 megabit-per-second connection (which is extremely low for a municipal network even if the city were to have only ten thousand inhabitants) and I believe that for this connection the municipality paid 4,000 reales (an extremely high cost). To this day we don’t know how this price was set: perhaps the company decided to set the price at 4,000 reales and there is nothing that Anatel − the regulating body − could do about it. In any case, this network was a great success, so much so that the municipality requested that their broadband be increased to 4 megabits. Great! But for doubling your capability we will charge you 20,000 reales instead of 4,000. What’s this all about? There’s no explanation to be had: “This is the price we are offering, and if you want the product it is what you must pay.” Consequently, not only does this company fail to contribute to the universalization of access within the city, but it also restricts local initiatives and universalization.

These are clear examples of the difficulties we are faced with. Some Brazilian states, such as the state of Pará, the state of Santa Catarina and several others, have taken the resolution of this problem into their own hands and created their own networks. In Pará, for example, we are using the fiber optics network of the state-owned electricity company − called Electro Norte − and creating a public backbone that will serve for connecting schools, telecenters, etc. and provide connectivity for municipal networks. The important thing about these examples is that they show that the sense of urgency has already been internalized: no matter what those who believe the opposite may say, it is already internalized. This is important because, in addition to being a right, offering different possibilities through the network is now a fundamental need, among others, for government services, for micro-ventures...

Of course, we agree that the universalization of access has progressed rapidly, but this does not mean that it shouldn’t continue to advance even more rapidly.

Another important aspect, which was also mentioned by Olga, is that it is important to focus on the issue of public policies. Until recently, in Brazil any municipality that dared provide universal access within its borders using network resources such as wireless technologies, etc. was not allowed to do so because they were not a telecommunications operator (for-profit telecommunications operators were the only companies authorized to operate data communication services). Obtaining a license was very expensive and practically impossible. Some municipal networks were even shut down by Anatel because they did not have one of these required licenses. The Duas Barras case is itself an example of this problem. Pirai − which was a pioneer within Rio de Janeiro − also suffered the same pressures. However, there was a strong movement involving the participation of several sectors in which even the Steering Committee participated in discussions with Anatel and in the end a new type of license was created that allows municipalities to operate these services without having to create a company, etc., etc. In terms of regulations, this is an important step towards facilitating the autonomous implementation of local development initiatives having to do with these processes without suffering pressure from the regulatory body. On the contrary, the regulatory body now tends to facilitate this process.

So, as we can see, regulatory aspects are also essential and we need to fight for them, so that regulations will not simply be decided by powerful forces. When society in general is not present accompanying this process in an organized manner, regulations tends to favor status quo. This means that we must be present at these discussions.

As you see, there is much to be said on this matter. We are talking about a billion users − that’s a very large number. There are many more issues that would warrant discussion, but we are now out of time. Thank you very much.

Valeria Jordán: Thank you very much. I think that our panelists have covered all the aspects of this extremely complex issue. I would now like to open the floor to your questions so that we may begin our debate.

Francisco Rubio, ISOC Peru: Good morning. I have several comments, particularly in relation to the presentation by my colleague from AHCIET, for example on the issue of infrastructure and particularly on the issue of infrastructure for data communication.

Although it is true that Latin America has one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world, an additional factor that we need to consider is that our population is concentrated within the major cities. For example, in the case of Peru − which is the example that I know best − one third of the country’s population is concentrated in Lima. By contrast, over 80% of the telecommunications infrastructure and the telecommunications market is concentrated in Lima. This means that 80% is absorbed by Lima, whereas in the rest of the country − home to 70% of the population − telecommunications access means are scarce, particularly telecommunications infrastructure in terms of connectivity between cities, mobile communications and, particularly, the Internet.

Furthermore, this lack of infrastructure is even beginning to show within cities. As Carlos Afonso mentioned earlier, telecommunications regulations are mainly based on the regulation of voice communications. In Latin America data communication is generally regarded as a value-added service to voice communications and has therefore not been regulated. Thus, in this sense, for example, the ceiling for broadband expansion within Peru and within certain parts of Latin America is quite low. Although it is indeed true that Latin America has exhibited very high growth rates, these figures have been very high for purely mathematical reasons: when something experiences growth from 1 to 2, this growth can be read as 100%, but in fact, in absolute terms, growth is practically non-existent. This is the reason why Latin America exhibits significant relative growth rates, but when we begin to speak in absolute terms we realize that the figures are in fact quite low. I mentioned that their room for growth is limited, and this is because land line penetration in Latin America is quite low, particularly in Peru. This means that broadband penetration is currently quite low and we will not be able to grow beyond this ceiling because there is a lack of infrastructure for it to grow on and, if broadband continues to be tied to voice communications as a value-added service, this will represent a serious obstacle for its growth.

In Peru there are currently some movements that are attempting to separate data communications from voice communications, and even considering that, thanks to technological issues having to do with convergence, voice communications could even become a value-added service to data communications (transmission of voice over data). In addition, speaking of mobile telephones, although it is true that mobile telephony is growing at a very high rate, this growth is mostly related to prepaid services as opposed to postpaid services. In Peru, prepaid mobile telephone users represent more than 80 per cent of the total number of users, and I believe that this figure is similar for the rest of Latin America. Prepaid telephone services are very expensive, much more than postpaid services. This goes against the fact that, in the case of prepaid services, operators are guaranteed payment, have low OPEX because there are no debtors to deal with, money is paid up front... It is precisely for these reason that in countries such as India prepaid services are cheaper than postpaid services.

Valeria Jordán: I’m sorry, but I need to ask you to ask your question as directly as possible so that others may have the chance to participate.

Francisco Rubio: What I said before was more a comment than a question. I would like to ask, for example, how can we change the problems that we are discussing by means of regulations?

My final comment has to do with ARPUs. It was mentioned that ARPUs are low. I agree that they may be low in voice communications but, as Carlos Afonso mentioned, in Latin America, data transmission has one of the highest ARPUs not only of the region but of the world.

Matías Rodríguez: I will try to be as brief as possible.

First, the question about regulations. For years now the business sector has been involved in an intense effort aimed at modifying regulations. What Francisco mentioned is also an issue that concerns the business sector and, as far I can tell from what I hear at regulators’ and operators’ meetings at AHCIET, it is also an issue that concerns regulators. Convergence will not be regulated by setting up walled gardens, it will not be regulated considering each service as something special or ancillary to others. This point of view would put us directly in the position of boycotting the growth of convergent services, so let’s hope that this process that we are working on comes to fruition.

Second, the urban concentration of our population is absolutely real. The case of Peru is quite a representative one. Now then, there is also a relevance to this. In Lima there is an excess of infrastructure, but there is no excess of Internet users. Something is missing, and it has nothing to do with machines or hardware.

As to inequality, Olga mentioned it, Francisco mentioned it, Carlos mentioned it: Latin America has the highest Gini coefficient in the world. I cannot recall the exact value of the global Gini coefficient, but I am pretty sure that it is quite high. Now let’s assume a fact of reality: we live in a completely unequal society. I think that this figure is correct because I checked it about a year ago while preparing a paper: today, speaking in terms of wealth (not in terms of income or of products) half the world’s population − 3.3 billion people − own between 1.2 and 1.5 of global wealth. Less than 1,000 individuals (between 250 and 1,000 depending on the source we choose to quote) own between 1.5 and 1.7 of the total wealth. This means that less than 1,000 people on this planet are richer than the poorest half of humankind.

So, let’s assume that this is a fact and that it will not change because of a greater availability of telecommunications infrastructure. This is a battle that must be fought by the generations, not by those charged with deciding where to deploy investments in infrastructure.

Andrés: My comment is also for Mr. Rodriguez. First of all I would like to congratulate you on your “glass half-full” vision. The truth is that I find it extremely useful to put things into perspective. Frequently, the analyses we have been hearing yesterday and today have been quite critical and typically we do have a tendency towards that critical point of view. Your point of view is very interesting and I wouldn’t dare disagree on any of the points you have mentioned. However, I would like to provide a view from my role as part of Civil Society, which is also the view of some of the persons I have had the opportunity to speak with.

There are some aspects on which I would like to add a few words: the role of the business sector, the role of the industry in favoring access for this new billion users. I have no doubt that if you Google “next billion” you will find all these initiatives on the part of companies that, come to think about it, are all companies related to instant access services, access devices, high-end mobile telephones, new paradigms, etc. I don’t think that they have the same level of commitment but, even so, I believe that this industry must still take a few steps in the sense of committing a greater contribution to solidify public policies. The meeting pictured in Olga Cavalli’s photograph took place one and a half or two years ago. It was a fantastic meeting, a very plausible initiative which could not be repeated for circumstantial reasons in relation to which the industry could perhaps contribute more than it already does. But, even so, part of the industry is very strong − those who profit enormously from registration or web 2.0 companies that have a huge impact on the volume of users and that would benefit immensely, those who perhaps benefit more indirectly such as social networks, search engines…

My question is not what the role of the business sector is. I would like to say that I believe that companies could assume a more active role in promoting this type of strengthening. What I would like to ask this panelist is what he thinks about this type of industry, as we trust that the industry identifies with the objective in the sense that they are interested in having more users. In any case, from your point of view, don’t you think that this role of the industry should be strengthened?

Matías Rodríguez: Yes. That would my brief reply. (Risas)

Olga Cavalli: A brief comment. Thank you, Andrés, for mentioning what you said about the photograph. I would like to tell you that several other meetings were held after the one in the picture. In fact, in March 2007, we held an informative seminar on the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. It wasn’t the only meeting we had.
 
Matías Rodríguez: Andrés, I wanted to allow time for others to participate, but I don’t want to give the impression that I did not find your question important. It is important, and I do believe that there is a lot more that the industry can do: a lot is being done, but there is much more that can be done. The industry is but an actor, the industry is not the whole − nor does it believe it is. Civil Society must be increasingly present in all matters, more so when we speak of relevance. Perhaps the role of Civil Society in the deployment of infrastructure is smaller, but it definitely has a major role in understanding what we are doing, in the generation of meaning. In absence of meaning, none of this is justified.

You asked about my “glass half-full” approach. We do believe that the glass is half-full and we are trying to fill it completely. It is also part of the business paradigm: there are things to be done, so we cannot focus on complaints but instead we must find solutions and move forward. But, basically, social corporate responsibility is an aspect of commercial activity that is trying to strengthen and improve its relationships with society. Today, together with the General Ibero-American Secretariat, AHCIET itself is organizing a fund for development which was approved at the Summit of Heads of State and Government in Chile and included in Item 45 of its Plan of Action. Basically, now that our countries have generated digital and horizontal agendas, this project implies promoting the use of digital technologies sector by sector. The decision to go back to each sector was made because we can see that there is no appropriation, we can see that the different sectors are not sufficiently embracing the digital paradigm. So, in this sense, we are working by sectors. We began with the livestock production sector and here, in this country, we have a fantastic example of a change of attitude towards the digital paradigm which is traceability, an example which, at Valeria’s request and because of a lack of time, I will leave for another opportunity.

To conclude, AHCIET is working on this horizontal cooperation fund for information and communications technologies together with the General Ibero-American Secretariat and the presidents that meet at the summit.

Raúl Bauer: First of all I would like to congratulate everyone. My question is for Matías, so that he can complete his previous answer. I want to say that I agree with Bernadette’s presentation. I believe that we are going through a first phase, in a way we are satisfying an already existing demand, but there will come a time when the industry will have to help generate a stronger demand − and I have faith in the industry’s values and actions.

It is not my intention to solve the economic divide by solving the digital divide, but we must be careful not to generate a gap because of a lack of appropriate and relevant content: we are building a highway, some users have cars but don’t know where to go or how to drive them. I would like to hear a bit more about how the industry is helping generate contents specific to each sector. That’s my question.

Matías Rodríguez: I completely agree with your comment. I very much liked Bernadette’s presentation, which I found completely relevant.

As to the concrete issue at hand, the conclusion we have reached based on a couple of studies we commissioned is that there is a gap in terms of paradigms within each sector. In other words, each productive sector has very strong paradigms that receive feedback from internal circuits and networks, even within a specific sector: those at international level speak only with those at international level and so on. What we discuss, what we preach, what we debate among ourselves when we meet around the globe with many of you, my friends, who, as Angélica Ospina, a good Colombian friend says, are already a part of my family since we meet so frequently all over the world, all of this doesn’t even have sufficient effect in our own countries. The paradigm adopted by the health sector is different from the paradigm of those in ICTs, and it is impossible to try to convince a hospital administrator that ICTs can cure people. In the past I always mentioned the example of a specific hospital without providing its location because it was in a different country. But now I have encountered a very similar example in my own country − that of a hospital infrastructure design that does not take into consideration the need for installing wiring: the idea never even crosses their mind. This is just great! For example, in the USA consumer associations recommend patients not to allow themselves to be treated by a doctor who does not have a computer on his or her desk, this recommendation is displayed everywhere; however, here, hospital administrators prefer spending their money on surplus scalpels instead of installing network wiring. I mentioned this particular example, but I could have mentioned many others. We need to work on this paradigm gap, one sector at a time. We cannot do this by launching an invasion of ICT converts; instead, we will do it in small doses and within the environments where we can find the leading actors. For example, speaking of the livestock production sector, we work with livestock farmers, auctioneers, consignees, public authorities.

To conclude, we believe that at this point appropriation of the digital paradigm on the part of all sectors is a need and we are working in this direction at a regional level. We have been lucky in that the heads of state and government have agreed with this vision and that they support this cooperation fund, which was established in Item 45 of the Plan of Action approved in Santiago, Chile, at the Summit of the Americas.

Carlos Aguirre: First of all I would like to congratulate the members of the panel: all their presentations have been excellent. Having the chance to hear these presentations is simply wonderful: Olga and her statistics and precise comments, Matías and the point of view of the industry, Carlos Afonso and his particular view of things, and Bernadette and her clear and penetrating view of reality have been truly enlightening.

I believe that the analysis of Internet governance is closely related to a definition which I heard earlier and which I loved: “Something is missing, and it has nothing to do with machines or hardware.” Nowadays, as I always say to my students, everything has to do with machines, and, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t exist at all. Sadly, this is the reality we must deal with. But, because this is our reality, we are saying that in order to find an appropriate solution it is necessary to adopt a multidisciplinary approach, to consider multiple points of view, to include multiple sectors, to analyze every aspect that combines to make up this solution. If we don’t, there is a chance that we will miss something, and if we miss a single element the entire solution will fail. Therefore, another aspect that I dare add to what has already been said is that − take this panel for example − the legal point of view is absent. Legislation is necessary to help this move forward, either in a correct or incorrect direction, but someone needs to channel these matters.

I can think of many things to say in relation to legislative aspects that would be necessary and highly beneficial, but we must also consider legal security, an aspect that was already mentioned by Carlos Afonso. Legal security means not modifying the parameters of a negotiation during the negotiation itself, it means being able to find investors to provide connectivity in each country. However, these investments will not come if we have an Institute of Statistics and Census that modifies these parameters such as the one we have in Argentina, or in the case of some other countries where regulations are tailor-made to suit those to whom they will apply... But this is a topic which I do not want to enter. Thank you.

Raúl Echeberría: Hello. I will try to keep my comment as brief as possible.

I think that the sense of urgency in fulfilling these objectives is not the result of, for example, the contents of a business plan; instead, it a consequence of the fact that a part of the world population − in which I am included − acts as if everyone were connected. Thus, as communications through the Internet gain increasing importance, the risk of discrimination and increasing the divide (which is not at all digital but still quite real) becomes even greater. This is the reason behind the sense of urgency.

As Carlos said, when new e-government projects are created and in many other cases which I will not detail for reasons of time, the need to reach more individuals increases. Of course, we need to see this in terms of a strategic planning process based on an objective. Perhaps we should bring this objective down to regional level saying, for example: How to reach the next 100 million in Latin America and the Caribbean. Or the next 150 million, or any number we optimistically decide to adopt. I think that connecting 100 million new users in two years could be an attainable goal. At least, as Jack Welch, that famous General Electric CEO, said, we should try to set for ourselves extended goals, which are goals that appear to be utopian but that in fact can later be attained. This is important and − before Cornelio who likes to talk about this subject and with whom I always agree brings it up − the question is not access itself, it is not connecting people for the sake of connecting them. The question is to connect them for a purpose.

In any case, we need to establish other strategic objectives having to do with this purpose. We also need to establish goals relating to access. The important thing about these goals, a lesson we could learn, is that if we have a strategic goal then there is no way to justify public policies that do not favor those goals and that go against them. If we all agree in that in two years we need to connect 100 million persons, then we cannot later support regulations or public policies that are opposed to this goal. Other goals may be established, but then it would be necessary to specify them. For example, the goal could be to protect local economies, to protect incumbents, any reasonable goal could be defined. But, if the goal is to connect 100 million people, then this is the direction in which public policies must point and there is no way to justify policies that go against this. I think that this is the framework of what could be a great lesson from now on. Thank you.
 
Matías Rodríguez: Sorry Raúl, but I would like to clarify some of the things I said earlier. Before speaking of urgency I stated that the universalization of the Internet is a goal with which we could be in complete agreement. What we don’t agree with is the focus on the next billion and on the urgency in connecting the next billion. I also pointed out that the next billion is already connected and needs to be convinced, we need to provide relevance. Trying to connect a billion users that are already connected doesn’t make any sense. What I would like to suggest is that the paradigm needs to include the mobile telephone network as a shorter path, as a bridge over the digital divide. Third, Carlos Afonso mentioned earlier that there is a tendency towards regarding Internet access as a right, and now you echo this notion. Who could want Internet access to be regarded as a right more than the industry? And a public service as well: to provide this public service is the goal of these companies. Finally, as to public policies, yes, of course all of us agree that it is essential to promote public policies that favor universal connectivity. But we must bear in mind that public policies are made with an agenda and a budget, and we don’t know what it is like to be in the shoes of those in charge of determining priorities within the agenda and deciding the use of the scarce available funds. Luckily I am not in those shoes. So, what is perhaps essential from our point of view, for the person who wears those shoes − who must answer before the citizenry that will judge whether the funds were appropriately applied − it is simply one more item on the agenda and perhaps the available funds are simply not enough to prioritize the connection of 100 million users in two years, particularly considering the fact that they are already connected. That’s my comment.

Ariel Graizer, CABASE, Argentina: Our country was divided into two, not three, captaincies: North and South. Today we are suffering disinvestment, and for this reason I wanted to ask you your opinion on the process of competition, as none of the aspects that have been presented so far, not even during the Q&A session, have dealt with the matter of competition. I firmly believe  competition guarantees access. So, my question is the following: Is there no competition in these places? How does Brazil promote competition in order to eliminate these barriers?

Carlos Afonso: For example, in Europe, one of the factors that greatly reduces connection costs for the end user − which, bottom line, is the final objective of everyone present here today − is the process of network unbundling.

The paradigm that we have today − providing Internet services over the fixed telephone network − is destined to die. We all know that it will be replaced by other technologies. However, while it exists, there is a process that involves using the same infrastructure on the part of competitors, companies that may provide services over this physical network on an even playing field with others. Thus, they use the same physical network to offer broadband services and sign a contract or agreement with the company that owns or operates the resources of the physical network. In some European countries this unbundling process has been implemented in a very interesting way, and today there are even European Union regulations that strongly recommend a structural or functional unbundling process. (This distinction is formal: structural unbundling involves the complete separation of the operator in relation to the company that provides data transport services over the same physical infrastructure.) In other words, there are many ways to analyze this, but the fact is that the presence, the actual possibility of network unbundling reduces costs and therefore lowers the price for end users.

In Brazil this is being discussed with great resistance on the part of the captaincies that do not want to lose the opportunity to continue operating with the possibility of providing broadband services over their physical network. We  cannot say whether or not this will be approved. At this moment there is an ongoing fight at Anatel which is practically tied with a score of 2-2, while one counselor remains to be decided. If this counselor favors current operators, then unbundling will not be approved. Despite these problems we are facing, we still need to take this type of measures, which are not measures against operators. In my opinion, fixed telephone operators have already moved on to other things: the distribution of Triple Play, multimedia, their current fight with cable TV companies so that legislation and regulations will allow them to operate television services over the Internet, etc. I believe that monopolies have a psychological compulsion to offer resistance against the opening of these physical networks and allowing their unbundling, which would imply a reduction of costs.

Michael Stanton, Brazilian Academic Network: Good morning. I have a few comments that I would like to address to Carlos Afonso. He has spoken about some of the things that are happening in Brazil, and I would like to mention some other aspects relating to the academic community and the municipal and state governments of Brazil.

These refer to the perception that broadband does not equal 256Kb. Las year we received a visit from an Internet specialist from Barcelona (Arthur Serra), who made a presentation for us about the next 9 billion Internet users. He emphasized an aspect that was mentioned by Bernadette: the Internet must be presented to users with a strong visual component because, for different reasons, for the majority of the population text is not enough. In addition, we need the capacity to reach this vast population and this has to do with infrastructure, with having fiber optics at every level: metropolitan, rural, international.

I would like to mention one of the examples available in Brazil, which is the program of metropolitan networks created by my organization (RNP) which are being built in cooperation with local governments who, in turn, benefit from these networks. An example of this is Pará. After launching our network in Belén, the state government launched a state network that will connect almost all cities by means of fiber optics networks which are shared with the electricity company. Although they are not your typical telecommunications provider, they have been able to cooperate successfully: the government pays for the equipment, results are shared, and the population receives the benefits. I would like you to comment on the advantages of this type of cooperation.

Carlos Afonso: That is exactly what this is about. It is just what I was talking about at first: there are opportunities that need local public policies, policies that incorporate the idea of local development as a whole with the aim of optimizing these instruments lower costs as much as possible. There are many examples of municipalities − and even some state governments − that have greatly reduced telephone costs by creating their own infrastructure and using voice over IP (telephony over the Internet). In some cases (there are two or three Brazilian municipalities for which concrete figures are available) the savings achieved by using voice over IP and a self-owned network, built in a cooperative manner as in the examples Michael just shared with us, is more than enough to cover the operation and development costs of the network. And I’m talking only of the savings resulting from the use of voice over IP. In larger cities, internal communications within the municipality itself cost a lot of money if conventional telephony is used. But, if other means are considered that use Internet infrastructure, then spectacular savings can be achieved which are practically enough to finance a network such as this.

Valeria Jordán: Well, I believe that there is still much room for debate, but unfortunately we must conclude the session. I apologize to those of you who did not have time for your questions or comments...