Other articles on similar
subjects
are published in English
in the
Offline
column
|
 |
1. Ten
years ago – and now |
|
|
Ten years ago I was asked to start writing about the
internet. There were interviews, articles and books that were
published only in Italian. A monthly column started in 1996 (it’s
only partly online in English.)
In following years it was replaced by others in different magazines.
This series has been appearing, in both languages, since 1997. Only
one of the other columns, Offline,
is available in English (it started in 1998.)
(On a different, but not unrelated, subject
The Power of Stupidity
started, in English, in 1996 and continued in following years.)
Of course it would be boring for readers to re-consider
old thoughts and comments if they were just the opinions of
one person. But I never wrote anything without checking a
variety of sources and discussing issues with all sorts of
people. Including some that have depth of knowledge and
competence on the subject – and others who don’t,
but ask interesting questions.
For a variety of reasons I’ve been looking back at things
that were published years ago – and that I had almost
forgotten. In some cases they could be written today as they
were then, but in others the perspective has changed.
Neither I, nor my best advisers, ever attempted forecasts
or prophecies. But what we were learning from trends, as we
could see them ten or five years ago, wasn’t always confirmed
by what happened later.
We knew that the net was growing, but not as fast as most sources
were claiming eight or ten years ago. On a global scale, and in Europe
as a whole, facts are in line with what we expected. There was no
exaggerated acceleration in the years of hype, nor any relevant slowdown
a few years later, when there was a widespread feeling of gloom. (See
international and
European data.)
There were, however, some changes that didn’t fit our
expectations. In some parts of the world there is, so far, slower development
than we thought would come (see low
density countries.) While in some places (including Italy)
there has been faster growth, in recent years, than could be
“guessed” by any projection of previous trends.
We never believed in a “new economy” – or in a
“network society” as separate from human culture as
a whole. We were quite firm in believing that there wasn’t,
and there isn’t, any “cyberspace”. But, to some
extent, we were naive in expecting a faster and greater
evolution of the “information age”. The potential
is there, but our way of using our new information and
communication resources isn’t improving as fast, or as
widely, as it could.
We never believed in the repeatedly announced “death
of printed paper”. However we did, for a while, expect
hypertext systems on hardware supports, such as cd-roms, to
provide useful alternatives in the case of complex specialized
databases – but “electronic publishing”
has been very disappointing (and web resources are often much
more effective, if and when they are properly updated.)
We were concerned that attempts to censor, control,
restrict, scrutinize and “tame” the internet would
continue – and unfortunately we were right. We were quite
concerned about spamming and online swindles (see
Spam and scam)
but we didn’t expect them to grow so enormously, with
no serious efforts to bring them under control.
We were hoping that the expansion of fatware would find a
limit (see The Hermes pendulum
and the art of lightness) though we never made any
assumptions about when it could happen. It isn’t
surprising, but it’s quite disappointing, that we are still
running at full speed in the wrong direction (see
Less is better and
The stupidity of technologies.)
We believed then, as we do now, in the importance of opensource
resources. That notion is somewhat more widely perceived than it was
ten years ago, but it isn’t as extensively applied than it should.
We were skeptical about financial manipulations – and
things went even worse that we expected (see
The “bubble”
misconception.)
Sometimes we were hoping for too much – or too soon.
Not in growth or size, but in quality. Fact proved us right, most of
the time, when we were cautious or skeptical. We were more
often wrong when we expected human improvement, evolution in
culture and society. We knew that changes don’t happen just
because we have the tools. But it wasn’t unreasonable to hope.
My friends and I have been discussing this for a while.
We are disappointed – but we are learning from our mistakes.
It wasn’t just daydreaming. Human nature and cultural
evolution have ups and downs. There is no reason to stop trying to find
new openings, new thoughts, new paths, new hopes. But we must realize
that it’s much more complicated than “reasonable”
expectations lead us to believe ten years ago.
The future is unpredictable. But we can learn by
following trends and developments, keeping our eyes open for
those small signals that often are more relevant than the
“big picture” as painted every day by the big
homogenized information system.
back to top
|
|
2. China –
and other problems |
|
|
On July 26, 2004, Reporters sans
frontières issued a statement about censorship of the
internet in China. It was one of many on the same subject.
Over the years they have been published many times, by
several human rights organizations, but rarely reported in
mainstream media. This one became front-page news in
newspapers, and was covered in peaktime news on television,
because it involved two large “western”
companies.
There is nothing new about information control and
censorship in China – as in many other places. But
this time the news is about two US-based
international online services cooperating with the Chinese authorities
in blocking access to “forbidden” sources.
In the case of Yahoo, it’s been going on for years.
The “news” is that apparently also Google is
“complying”. In June 2004 Google bought into Baidu,
a Chinese search engine – that, as others in the country,
doesn’t allow access to websites that aren’t approved
by the government. It is reported that, under pressure from Chinese
authorities, in July Google agreed to “filter” also
its own system. Sites that can be found with Google in the rest of
the world are not reachable by internet users in China.
Several American companies have been cooperating with
Chinese censorship. For instance Reporters sans
frontières explains that Cisco Systems has supplied
thousands of routers that are used to spy the use if the
internet by people in China.
“Compliance” by international search engines or
information services doesn’t change the practical
circumstances. Chinese authorities can (and do) block sources
that don’t support censorship. And anyone in China who is
found bypassing the rules can be sent to jail. But cooperating actively
isn’t the same as being victimized. This isn’t just
a serious violation of principle. It also paves the way for all sorts
of other compromises.
China is the biggest, by sheer size – but it isn’t the
only problem. The Global Internet Freedom Act, approved by the
US congress in July 2003, seeks to fight
censorship in countries such as China, Burma, Cuba, Syria and Saudi
Arabia. But the list of governments censoring information as
whole, and specifically the internet, is much longer. It
includes countries with a large population, such as Iran and
Vietnam, but also many others, that aren’t less important
just because they are smaller. (A report by RSF
The
Internet Under Surveillance covers 60 countries).
The situation around the world is very complicated. There
are countries with low internet activity
because of censorship, others for basically different reasons.
And there are countries (e.g. in South-East Asia) with a high
quantity of online presence, but poor quality, because of severe
restrictions of freedom. (Things are likely to get worse in Hong Kong,
that has a separate TLD and a three or four times
larger hostcount than mainland
China, if central authorities continue to enforce tighter control –
and there isn’t much more freedom in neighboring countries.)
The question is... why did this particular item, in the
vast and serious subject of censorship and human rights, gain
special attention in mainstream media? The answer is that
Google is in the limelight because of its announced stock
offer. There is something weird, and perplexing, in this way
of approaching the subject. Media coverage tends to ignore,
or to treat very superficially, the complex and unhealthy ties that link
finance and repression, censorship and terrorism, compromise
and manipulation. How can we trust media that touch (vaguely)
on such subjects only when (maybe) they can have an influence
on the stock market?
Are we to expect that Google, driven by greed and
financial pressures, will fall into the tangle of compromises
that drove its competitors to failure? That, so far, seems
unlikely. But, if there were more symptoms of unhealthy
“compliance”, we should be ready to drop Google
(as we did a few years ago with traditionally established search
engines) and move on to whoever will offer us free, open and
reliable resources.
back to top
|
|
3. Large low-density countries |
|
|
In issue 31 (February 1999)
I published the results of an analysis, that had started two years earlier,
on “large low-density countries” It wasn’t
updated in following years because other documents, that were
being added in the data section,
helped to understand the global situation. Another reason was the
dismaying fact that, in some of those countries, the situation wasn’t
changing – or it was getting worse in proportion to the general
growth of the internet (most readers, anyhow, seem more interested in
what is happening at the higher end of the scale.)
But I guess it’s time to take another look. Some things
did change in five years. The most obvious fact is that the gap
has increased. Some of those countries no longer have
“low density”, while others are lagging behind. Of course
it’s arbitrary, as it was five years ago, to draw the line at 50 million
inhabitants. And of course what is happening in many other countries,
regardless of size, is important. But this is just a way of showing, with a
few examples, how different the situations are around the world.
Here is a summary of how things have changed in five years, from
1998 to 2003, in the 18 countries considered in this analysis. (The first
four are no longer in the “low density” category, but they
are included here for the sake of comparison with five years earlier.)
| |
number of
hosts 2003 |
times growth
in 5 years |
per 1000
inhabit. |
| Brazil |
3,163,349 |
x 14.7 |
18.6 |
| Mexico |
1,333,406 |
x 11.8 |
13.7 |
| Russia |
800,277 |
x 4.8 |
5.5 |
| Turkey |
359,500 |
x 11.1 |
5.7 |
| China * |
160,241 |
x 9.3 |
0.12 |
Ukraine |
130,596 |
x 8.3 |
2.6 |
| Thailand |
103,700 |
x 5.0 |
1.7 |
| India |
86,871 |
x 6.6 |
0.09 |
| Indonesia |
62,035 |
x 4.0 |
1.0 |
| Philippines |
27,996 |
x 3.0 |
0,4 |
| Egypt |
22,452 |
x 10.7 |
0.3 |
| Pakistan |
15,124 |
x 4.9 |
0.1 |
| Nigeria |
1,172 |
x 2.9 |
0.01 |
| Iran |
496 |
x 2 |
0.008 |
| Vietnam |
340 |
x 10 |
0.004 |
| Congo |
153 |
n.a. |
0.003 |
| Ethiopia |
9 |
n.a. |
n.a. |
| Bangladesh |
2 |
n.a. |
n.a. |
* Not including Hong Kong
(see Chinese area)
Worldwide
hostcount in 2003 is 5.4 times larger than it was in 1998.
Average
density is getting close to 15 hosts per 1000 inhabitants.
Seven of these
countries have faster-than-average growth,
six are slower, in five
figures are too small to be comparable.
There is growth in several countries, but only two (Brazil
and Mexico) have reached a level that can lo longer be called
“low” (in the data section there a document
on large laguage communities
that includes an update of internet development in Latin America.)
Russia and Turkey are far below the world average, but they
are considerably above the level of less developed countries (see
European and
international data.)
In other countries, even when the growth factors are high,
total numbers and density remain very low.
The following graphs include the 12 countries, of these 18,
that five years ago had over a thousand internet hosts
and now have over 20,000.
They can’t be all placed in one graph, because
differences are too large. The first group includes four countries
with densities that are no longer “low” –
between 5 and 20 hosts per 1000 inhabitants.
Four
countries
(thousands
of internet hosts)
The red part of bars shows growth in five years (from 1998 to 2003)
There is remarkable growth. The fastest is Brazil – now
one of the eight largest countries in the internet worldwide. Mexico
has overtaken Russia (and also sereral countries that were
traditionally strong online – see
international data.)
In the second graph the situation is different. We see three
“large countries” with densities between 1 and 3
hosts per 1000 inhabitants. One in Europe, two in Asia.
Three
countries
(thousands
of internet hosts)
The red part of bars shows growth in five years (from 1998 to 2003)
There are different speeds of growth – all retalively high,
in a five-year period, as a percentage. But levels remain low in
relation to population.
In the third graph we see five countries with very low
density – between 0.09 e 0.5 hosts per thousand inhabitants.
Four in Asia, one in Africa.
Five
countries
(thousands
of internet hosts)
The red part of bars shows growth in five years (from 1998 to 2003)
Hong Kong
is not included in China
The fastest growth, as a percetage, is in Egypt. – followed by
China and India. There are different reasons why internet development
is very low in the world's two largest countries. (In the analysis of
language communities
there are data about Chnese-speaking countries – and at the
end there is a map of the situation in Asia.)
While in China, as we have seen,
there is severe political repression, there are other problems in India
(not only poverty, but also bureaucratic and organizational problems
that stand in the way of internet development.) This is a very complex situation,
but it’s hard to understand why a country with a billion
inhabitants, more English-speaking people than the British islands,
and high levels of technical and cultural competence in larger
numbers than most countries worldwide, has fewer internet hosts
than Iceland with less than 300,000 inhabitants. The entire Indian
“sub-continent” has just over 100,000 internet hosts.
In the other six “large countries” the level
of online activity is extremely low. In Nigeria the number
of internet hosts increased from 419 in 1998 to 1172 in
2003, but density is 0,01 per thousand inhabitants. In a large
part of Africa things aren’t any better. But, as we
shall see in the following analysis,
Nigeria, with over 100 million inhabitants, has fewer internet
hosts than some much smaller African countries.
In Vietnam the number of hosts increased, in five years,
from 34 a 340, in Iran from 244 to 496. These would be tiny
numbers even in countries with a much smaller population.
We know that is both these countries, as in many others,
freedom of speech and communication are heavily repressed.
Internet activity in Congo is extremely low, and it’s
even worse in Ethiopia, where the number of hosts appears to have
decreased from 78 in 1998 to 9 in 2003. No internet hosts were found
in Bangladesh in 1998, and now there appear to be two. Several other
countries, in Africa and Asia, are close to zero hostcount.
These, of course, are only a few examples of a great variety
of situations around the world. There is considerable global
development of the internet, with some countries growing
much faster than average, while others are slower. A large part
of the world still has very limited access to the net (see
international data).
back to top
|
|
4. The internet in Africa |
|
|
In ten years of studying the development of the internet
I never published an analysis of the situation in Africa. I tried
several times to learn something from available data, but
(except in the case of South Africa) numbers were too small
to be meaningful. Though some of the figures aren’t
as tiny as they used to be, even now, in most cases, they are
only marginally relevant. But maybe we can begin
to take a closer look to what is happening in the continent
with the lowest general level of internet activity.
Two facts are clear. Most of the continent has a very low
hostcount. And (see international
data) eight tenths of the total are in one country, South Africa,
that has 5 percent of Africa’s population.
This table shows the situation in the 13 African countries with
over a million inhabitants and more than a thouand internet hosts.
| |
number of
hosts 2003 |
% growth
in two years |
per 1000
inhabit. |
| South Africa |
288.633 |
+ 21 |
6,7 |
| Egypt |
22.452 |
+ 284 |
0,34 |
| Kenya |
8.325 |
+ 277 |
0,28 |
| Morocco |
6.517 |
+ 378 |
0,26 |
| Tanzania |
5.534 |
+ 272 |
0,16 |
| Zimbabwe |
4.501 |
+ 29 |
0,43 |
Mozambique |
3.249 |
n.a. |
0,18 |
| Namibia |
3.164 |
n.a. |
2,09 |
| Botswana |
1.920 |
+ 51 |
1,14 |
| Zambia |
1.880 |
+ 72 |
0,20 |
| Rwanda |
1.495 |
+ 32 |
0,20 |
| Swaziland |
1.495 |
+ 23 |
1,36 |
| Nigeria |
1.172 |
+ 24 |
0,01 |
As explained in
international data
worldwide
growth of the internet
was 58 % in the last two years
and world
average density is close
to 15 hosts per 1000 inhabitants
In a general situation of very low density there are relevant
differences. Egypt, while still far behind South Africa, is considerably
ahead of all other African countries. There is high percent growth in
Morocco, while in other North African countries internet activity
remains extremely low. Libya has the same density as Nigeria,
Tunisia only slightly better and Algeria much worse.
In the rest of Africa there are some indications of growth
in a few countries, such as Kenya and Tanzania, and there is
relatively high density, compared to most of the continent,
in a few small countries such as Namibia.
In this graph we see density (hosts per 1000 inhabitants) in the
same countries as in the chart – excluding South Africa.
Internet
hosts per 1000 inhabitants
in 12 African countries
This chart can’t be taken too seriously because (as pointed
out at the beginning) figures are too small to be accurate, or even
approximately close to reality. And these are only a few examples of the
different, and complex, situations in many countries. But it’s clear
that, even in a low-development environment such as Africa, local
situations vary – ad some change over time.
In the analysis of “large
countries” we have seen the extremely low level
of online activity in Congo and the disastrous situation of Ethiopia.
Somalia and Eritrea aren’t doing any better. No active internet
hosts were found in Sudan and Zaire. Countries with a lower density
level than Nigeria include Uganda, Cameroon, Chad, Burundi...
and several others.
Let’s look at this picture also as a map.
Internet
hosts per 1000 inhabitants
Two
“blue dots” would appear in the ocean
if this map included
the Seychelles and Mauritius,
that have over three hosts per thousand
inhabitants.
Density in the São Tomé and Principe
islands
is close to South Africa’s. But, of course,
small
numbers aren’t very reliable.
Compared to the maps in three documents in the data section
(World –
Europe –
Latin Anerica and Asia)
the scale in this case is based on much lower density levels.
Also in other parts of the world it is noticeable that geographic
“vicinity” has some influence – as in the case
of countries close to South Africa. But otherwise the spots of (relative)
development are scattered – ad most of Africa has extremely
low intenet activity.
|
|
Summary
