Wiring the villages

So end the international telecom monopoly, make online payments legal, offer special facilities to software technology parks and broaden the scope of the definition of infotech products to include items that traditionally come under the heads of media, databases and services.

Clear enough, and fair enough. These are precisely the things that the industry has been demanding for years. But thereafter, the plan begins to impose upon our credulity by calling for revolution. It holds that for infotech to grow, it must become a mass phenomenon with widespread use of the Internet and subsidiary data networks. The point is: can it? The grounds for pessimism on this count are substantial.

There are, of course, obvious parallels with the early days of the Rajiv Gandhi government. His "campootar boys" were universally derided for their suggestion that digital systems might help solve India’s problems. The first among them, Sam Pitroda, was accused of hallucinating when he dreamed of a telephone inevery village. Today, computer skills have been identified as India’s strongest suit. And Pitroda’s dream is slowly becoming a reality with the yellow PCO signboard visible in the smallest towns.

But that is where the analogy ends. Rajiv saw the computer as a process facilitator, not a mass phenomenon. The man buying a railway ticket or taking money out of a bank account would not have to use the technology himself. but the Internet is a very hands-on medium. Today, there are about 200,000 connections in India. Assuming that five people use a connection only 0.1 per cent of our 930 million are familiar with Net technologies.

The telecommunications revolution was possible because voice communications does not face language incompatibilities. Two people will converse only if they speak the same language. On the Internet, however, language is a key issue. The vast majority of the servers hold information in English, thanks to the high penetration of the Net in the US, Australia and Britain. Then there isRussian, Spanish, Chinese and Japanese. The Indian languages come right at the bottom of the list, represented by the Websites of a few vernacular newspapers and cultural organisations.

Given the low level of literacy in English in India, Internet usage will not spread dramatically even if every PCO in the land is equipped with a computer and an ISDN line. For that to happen, the government will need to encourage content creation in Indian languages and the translation of English Web pages. That is, it will have to put its money where its mouth is.

The terms of reference of the IT Task Force called upon it to suggest measures for promoting the development of Indian content. It has only recommended "a multi-pronged approach involving fiscal and other incentives." In simple terms, it thinks language content development would be a jolly good idea. It has offered detailed, comprehensive and intelligent proposals on every issue but this one, which is among the most important.

However, the Task Force doesrealise that its proposed revolution will not take off unless there is a substantial consumer base in the country. The initiative of the Gujral government came to nothing because it addressed only the concerns of the corporate sector. The current action plan does take the needs of the consumer into account, but not adequately.

For instance, the biggest hurdle to Internet use in India is high telephone tariffs. The Task Force calls for a reduction in the rates of Internet access, which are anyway pretty low, without addressing this high variable cost. The government has not responded to the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd’s requests for the right to award concessions. If not an across-the-board reduction, at least this should have been recommended. It would have forced the Department of Telecommunications to reduce its rates as well.

The second-biggest hurdle is poor last-mile connectivity — between the Internet gateway server and your home computer — which is bad enough in the cities because of linedisturbances. The excellent proposals to allow dissemination through cable TV and wireless might solve the problem in the cities. But when the Task Force talks of taking the Internet to the villages, it will have to take on some of the worst phone lines in the world.

The Internet is good for two things — bringing information in and getting saleable goods and services out. Our present level of telecommunications service makes the former possible, though difficult. The latter, however, requires cheaper and more reliable alternatives. The Net may take grain prices to the villages and small towns, but it will fail in its most promising role — creating jobs and small businesses with international reach.

The Internet does not look set to become a mass phenomenon unless the monopoly of the Department of Telecommunications over domestic traffic is broken. The Task Force has taken the first step by exempting large networks from using its infrastructure. But until the private consumer is also freed from itsclutches, the boom will turn out to be a sad little squib.

The Task Force has probably gone wrong in choosing to make the Net a mass phenomenon. Its proposals for schools is totally unreal, in a nation where schools do not even have blackboards. Without substantial government investment, the Net will remain a tool of the elite. The Task Force should focus on what is possible instead of trying to forge a revolution.