<amarc-1> telecoms & strategy (was: A different concern)

[claddagh company <claddagh@lisp.com.au> (by way of Bram Dov Abramson <bram@tao.ca>)]

And now for some sobering statistics and thoughts on strategy.

The following critical matters are quoted verbatim from a joint publication
of the University of New South Wales Public Sector Research Centre andd the
Evatt Foundation entitled "Disciplining Governments? What the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI) would mean for Australia.

"Globalisation has become both a description of global processes and a
prescription for government policies in tthe closiing years of the
twentieth century. It refers to the inteegration of economic, social and
cultural activities across national boundaries.

The economic processes have been driven by deeregulation of fiinancial
markets, the growth of international trade, and the accelerated growth of
foreign direct investment (FDI), driven by multinational or transnational
corporations (MNC's).

Investment is now the main driver of globalisation, growing faster than
both trade and general economic growth. There are over 40,000 MNC's today,
compared with 7,000 a decade ago, wiith faster growth in services than in
manufacturing.  While these vary in size, there has been an increasing
concentration of larger corporations, many of which are LARGER ECONOMIC
UNITS THAN STATES. In 1996, the top 200 MNC's had combined annual sales
bigger than tthe combined economies of 182 of the world's 191 eeconomies
(Anderson and Cavanagh, 1996. "The Top 200: The Rise of Global Corporate
Power")"

It is clear to any observers of transborder capital flow that national
governments are caught between a rock and a hard place. They want the
employment promised (but not always delivered) by MNC's. Many, particularly
the developing countries underestimate their bargaining power with the
MNC's and usually end up with very poor deals which ultimately result in
the exploitation of their human and natural resources.

Targetting the Boards and management of these 200 MNC's and insisting that
they consider the human rights implications of their policies is an
important priority.

For our continuing access to the Internet, the national and international
telecommunications corporations are the final decision makers as to whether
to  maintain relatively open access or whether to "pull the plug" 

My own hope is that many of the engineers in particular who have designed
and constructed the vast cable andd satellite networks did so for both
monetary and humanitarian reasons. I worked in a corporate group of
Australia's Overseas Telecommunications Authority in the '80's and the
calibre of the movers and shakers in the organisation was impressive. There
was an implicit and
underlying commitment to the public good. Since then as everywhere else the
catchcries have become "competition" and "profits".

Recently, you are probably aware of the merging of British Telecom and the
US based AT&T to create a massivee international telecommunications giant.
Who owns the networks is of vital importance because without the networks,
the gateways and thee technical expertise to keep us all connected there
will be no access.

All the participants iin this conference could make it a task to research
their own national telecommuunications providers ie the telephone company
to which you pay your accounts and make it a priority to find out their
policiies on providing communication for the disadvantaged in their/your
communities.

What are their strategic plans for expansion? Where do they see their Key
Markets? Do they cross subsidise eg in Australia remote regional
communities have been given access to telecommunications but the main cost
has been borne from profits made in corporate andd metroplitan areas?

Which international consortia do they belong to, e.g. Intelsat, and what is
their relative power within those consortia.  In brief, who's calling the
tune?

Even a casual observer would be aware that since the emergence of the first
telephone, there has had to be an inordinately high level of co-operation
between national providers to enable the compatability between systems that
has permitted the international access which many of us now enjoy.

And on a closing note of optimism, the developing nations will benefit by
getting state of the art technology eg fibre optic cables and satellite
access rather than coaxial cable. So maybe we now all have something
tangible to do. When you do make contact with someone, preferably at
corporate level, in your local telecom, tell him/her about this conference
and how important it is.  Who knows: we could pick up some serious interest
and perhaps further sponsorship for the Milan Declaration, because a
Declaration is hardly worth the paper it is written on if it cannot be
translated into reality.

If we could get all the major and minor telecommunications companies to be
signatories to thee Declaration we will have secured a very tangible
commitment to the human right to communicate and the extension of this
privilege to those who are not presently empowered. Sorry this has been a
bit long-winded. I will try to shut up for a while and be a listener.

Sincerely,
Lyn     

****************************************

Gerri Marston
Communications Management
Suite 2/49 Keppel STreet
PO Box 1774
Bathurst  NSW  2795

Telephone 02 6331 2338
Fax       02 63334 524


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AMARC 7 Foro Virtual Forum Virtuel
http://www.amarc.org/amarc7
to unsubscribe / pour se desabonner / para abandonar :
e-mail "unsubscribe amarc-1 " to: majordomo@comunica.org