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

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

[This is an amalgam of two messages sent by Lyn MacIver to myself.  It
outlines further ideas and resources for Lyn's emerging idea on opening
direct dialogue between civil society and telecoms providers.  Slight
edits; comments?  --bda]

I promised to shut up, but the question has arisen about the Top 200
Corporations - who they are and whether "someone" or some organisation
could actually put them on a homepage.

It is important to differentiate between the top 200 and the national
telecommunications companies previously discussed. It is clear that when
MNC's move into developing countries their first requirement is to be able
to communicate across nationaal boundaries and so there is frequently a
variable degree of co-operation/collusion between local national
governments, the MNC's and whatever telecommunication provider already
exists, if any, and those from the developed world which are prepared to go
in to support the MNC's with a view to longer term profitability.

"Access" is a vexed issue and ideologically correct or not, the reality is
that corporate telecommunications policy often goes hand in hand with the
strategic goals of the developed world, the MNC's and a variety of elite
cliques such as international public relations entities which can
facilitate and hasten the processes of establishing infrastructure for the
networks neceessary to
operate.
     
Access for all follows the establishment of the infrastructure. Few
national governments have politiciaans with the knowledge to know how all
this works or the foresight and ethical awareness to see the process
initially as being in any way related to human rights or the right to
communicate.

It is important to clearly draw up a chart of the key players and
stakeholders. These are initially those already powerful groups in any
nation and the MNC's.  I am going to try to get a list of all the major
players in international telecommunications at present. If we can break
these down into national providers, we caan begin to see the scope of the
lobbying that needs to be done.

I have already mentioned Intelsat and you mentioned the ITU. In Australia
we also have some regulatory watchdogs such as AUSTEL (Australian
Telecommunications Authority) and ATUG (Australian Telecommunications Users
Group) 

It is clear from Kole's description of the problems in Nigeria that there
is no proper regulatory framework to protect users andd seemingly a degree
of corruption at government level. This is not to say that corrupt deals
aren't going on elsewhere but in developing countries with military
dictatorships the corruption tends to be more transparent.

As we all are probably aware telecommunications is a highly lucrative
business. It is almost impossible not to make money and so it attracts
interest from legitimate and illegitimate business interests alike.

Many corporations are now wanting to be seen as "good corporate citizens"
and it is often possible to convince them to become aligned with a
sponsorship arrangement if it is going to bring some favourable PR. When I
was with OTC, I was also invited to take on a voluntary position as Earth
Ambassador with UNICEF for the International Year of Peace in 1986. I was
able to get financial and other support for projects initiated from OTC and
the Australian and New Zealand Bank.
My corporate colleagues thought I was abit quaint and perhaps naive but
they supported me nevertheless, and were proud to be associated with the
outcomes which gave good media coverage and public exposure.

Softly, softly ...

The notion of "subversion" I think is rather unrealistic when we are
talking about a possible combat between elephants and ants.

[then, from a second message:]

I have located the site for the Top 200 Corporations
<http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/corner/glob/ips/top200.html>.

and the ITU (http://www.itu.ch/Sites/wwwfiles/tel_org-fr.html) has a Global
Directory which in the case of Australia gives me a First Assistant
Secretary contact in the federal government.

All countries are listed and can be accessed on line.

I guess the next thing to do is to formulate some focussed intelligent
questions which are requesting a set of common understandings from the
various telecoms on the Right to Communicate.

This means opening a grounded dialogue between ourselves as interested
participants in this conference and the telecom providers/national
governments as to their position re Human Rights and the Right to Communicate.

I rather think the strategy should be 

1.two-tiered in that we should focus on both the peak organisations eg AT&T
(which happens to be one of the TOP 200)and the national providers (if
these are distinct from the multinational telecom)

2.holistic in that we should attempt to forge links with all other major
and influential human rights groups eg Amnesty International and in
Australia, the Human Rights Commission etc to gain as much support for any
proposals to be drafted.

Hope this is of some use.

Lyn
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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