gian@gandalf.it

This is about genes. I believe that our understanding of new communication systems can improve if we put people before technologies; because human behavior, not just technology, will set the direction and pace of development.

Genetics is a complex science; I don’t have the competence to understand its subtleties. But a few simple things are clear. All species, including ours, have definite genetic and social traits. I think politicians and economists, as well as managers and students of organization, could have avoided many mistakes by understanding more clearly the basic patterns of human behavior.

It’s proven by genetics that survival of our species is based on a complex combination of individual and community drives. We are not a totally "social" animal, such as an ant or a bee; nor driven by total individualism. As confirmed by history, totally collective human societies don’t work; nor do those based exclusively on selfishness. There are similar traits in other species, especially mammals, from dolphins to baboons; but what matters here is the unique set of genes and behaviors that defines us as "human".

Behaviors not unlike those of today’s humanity existed in "early humans" nearly a million years ago. But we don’t need to go back so far. It’s enough to know that our DNA hasn’t changed significantly in the last ten thousand years. Even without genetics, we would know that from history and literature: we find five thousand year old writings, from poetry to accounting, that seem written yesterday.

This leads, I think, to a simple deduction. When technologies offer new options that fit "human nature", they develop. If they don’t relate to our true needs and desires, they are only a passing fad or fashion.

There are several practical applications of this concept. For instance, there is a lot of interesting discussion about the value of communities in the net. A social and economic system based on mutual help; a sharing of information and service. The more I give, the richer I shall become; of knowledge and, why not, money. Skeptics would be right in calling this utopia if we were dealing with something totally new.

This is as old as humanity. There would be no human culture or society without a relevant amount of apparently "unselfish" free exchange. Cruel as we can be, we also know how to help each other. This attitude is not based on a strict quid pro quo; we give away information and help, and expect receive it, even when there is no immediate reward. There is a basic perception, often intuitive rather than rational, that it’s more pleasant to have dialogue and exchange that to be isolated in a selfish world of aggressiveness and fear.

The study of organization has proved over and over (though it’s rarely practiced) that sharing and partnership in groups that spontaneously define roles and functions is much more effective than any hierarchy or bureaucracy. The network economy is the result of new tools that enhance a type of human behavior that was successful when our ancestors lived in caves.

These "success machines" (that of course are biological, not mechanical) are often born spontaneously and unexpectedly. In that case we need to be good gardeners: we must nurture them and protect them without damaging their growth process. But they can also be generated, if we have a clear strategy and flexibility in the way it’s achieved. The internet is a good example: it was conceived as a strictly defined objective, built by an extraordinary aggregation of different people and a variety of competence and knowledge. To this day it’s still based essentially on free exchange: I give away something because I need something from everyone else. Communities are not based on unconditional generosity, but on an exchange of benefits.

The power of the net is in the countless opportunities it offers for human exchange and community. It allows us to do what the best human organizations have always done, but offers more options than we have ever had. We can use it for fun, for the sake of knowledge, or to make money. It’s perfectly possible to mix the three – if well done, it makes the process more effective and the experience more pleasant.

According to EITO, this is the volume of the information technology and telecommunications market by large geographical areas in 1997 (millions of ECU):

This is the development of the information technology market in sixteen European countries:

* ECU in the IT market per 1000 inhabitants – 1997 Source: EITO 98

---

Southern European countries are behind, with Spain. Portugal and Greece growing faster than Italy (a trend that will continue, according to EITO, in the next few years). Of the large European counties, the strongest is France; as we shall see, according to this study the French are also leading in online communication.

Here are the data, from the same source, on telecommunications:

* ECU in the telecommunications market per 1000 inhabitants – 1997
Source:EITO 98

---

The two markets (IT and telecommunications) have similar trends in the more advanced countries, while in Southern Europe there is a relatively stronger development of telecommunications than information technology.

This is the number of telephone lines in seven countries:

Source: EITO Task Force

Southern European countries (and Japan) are weaker than the US and Northern Europe even in the most basic communication technology: telephone and fax. The picture is somewhat different when we look at mobile phones:

Source: EITO Task Force

---

It’s common knowledge that Italians are heavy users of mobile telephones; but there are more subscribers to that service in the United States and Japan.

An now... the net. Let me repeat here that all estimates of the number of online "users" are inaccurate, and we are not even sure that comparable criteria are used for different countries. In spite of those necessary doubts, I think it’s useful to compare different sources.

Let’s see the number of online users, according to EITO, in the same seven countries.

Source: EITO Task Force
Figures for 1997 are projections, thus even less reliable than those for previous years.
In the case of Italy, the best sources indicate a 40-50 percent growth last year, not 80 percent.

The most remarkable difference in this picture, as compared with other sources, is online activity in France. In this study, online does not mean only internet. The difference is due to the French peculiarity that was pointed out several times in this newsletter: wide use of the minitel. This study indicates that, when the minitel is considered, online activity France is one of the highest worldwide. As we have seen, France is also ahead of the game in information technology; if and when its minitel activity moves to the internet, the impact could be quite remarkable.

Here is a graph that summarizes the situation in the same seven countries.

Three communication systems
(users per 1000 inhabitants - 1997)

Source: EITO Task Force

---

In the United States there is almost equal development of all communication technologies. All other countries are unbalanced. Japan and Italy have a higher concentration of mobile phones, less of cable TV and online connections.

Let’s look at Europe in greater detail. This is a bit complicated, but I think the comparisons are interesting.

For a quick glance at some of the most relevant differences, here is a graph, covering only two new communication systems (mobile phone and online).

Online connections and mobile phones
online "users" and mobile telephone subscribers per 1000 inhabitants – 1996

Note: "Europe" here stands for "Western" Europe, including Turkey
Source: EITO Task Force

---

Throughout Europe (except in France) there is greater penetration of mobile telephones than online connections. We must remember that mobile phones can be counted precisely (number of subscribers) while the number of online users is an estimate, always larger that the number of contracts with ISPs or other online providers.

Now a quick summary in two "pie" graphs. According to EITO (that, I think, overestimates the role of Europe) this is the worldwide breakdown of online connections:

And this is the situation in Europe:

Once again, we see France as the leader, with 37 percent of online activity in Europe (and over two thirds of the European total concentrated in three countries). It this a "true" and fully reliable picture? I don’t think so. It’s debatable, as all other data. But it’s an interesting change of perspective; and one more proof of the fact that different sources and types of analysis can reach very different results. Once again, this is a picture of a very immature, unbalanced and unpredictable market.

As usual, there were many "April fool" tricks this year, and it was quite fun to see major newspapers swallow a bait that was originated in the internet. Other jokes, such as this one, were not as widely reported.

I am grateful to Enrico Colombini for his permission to quote a story that he wrote (on April 1) in an online forum about viruses:

New "Trout" virus

It’s reported that there is a PC virus designed to hit a specific program, possibly written by a competitor or by someone that was fired by "Autofish", a company in Genoa that makes automatic feeding systems for fish farms (it’s recent restructuring caused a lot of debate).

Apparently this virus makes the devices controlling feed input open more that they should, so the fish can eat as much as they want. No way has been found of uninstalling the virus, that replicates itself even when the software is re-installed from a "clean" boot. There have been some complaints by the ecologists, but authorities don’t seem to be taking them seriously.

The owners of fisheries are worried about the cost of wasting fish feed – and also the loss of revenue from the "entertainment" that some of them sell to lazy fishermen: the fish are overfed and don’t bite. Those that do bite the bait are people who believe what I’ve been writing.

There is a double catch here. The humor is about the frequent imaginary virus scares, that are still echoed by so-called "reliable" sources, and by the press, years after they were identified as jokes. But it’s also about the widespread reporting of an endless variety of nonsense on new technologies – and especially the internet.

A report by Nathan Newman published by Netaction on April 13 describes how the Justice Department’s 1995 opposition to the proposed Microsoft-Intuit merger opened the door to industry competition and ultimately resulted in the emergence of an open standard for electronic banking protocols. But... Newman says:

Continued vigilance by the Justice Department is necessary because Microsoft continues to use its financial and technological power to establish a monopoly in online financial transactions. If Microsoft is successful, it could ultimately gain control of the economic lifeblood of Internet commerce.

The government’s intervention made it possible for new competitors to enter the online financial marketplace, and at least gain a foothold in some of the markets that Microsoft was attempting to monopolize. Although Microsoft had sought to control the standards of online commerce through its merger with Intuit, the Justice Department’s opposition killed the proposed merger and forced the company to compromise with competitors in building core open standards into the online financial economy.

Unfortunately, Microsoft’s increasing dominance of corporate computing and Internet technology has led to a renewed monopoly threat in the world of online financial transactions. Microsoft is inserting its Internet servers into most online financial transactions. With its growing control of the Internet browser market, Microsoft is not only in a position to direct customers to its Internet sites, it can direct consumers to the financial services from which it gets a commission.

The most serious threat is that Microsoft is building a partnership with First Data Corporation in an effort to replace the role of banks in processing online bills that were previously mailed to customers by credit card companies, utilities or other merchants. The danger is that rapid, unregulated changes in the financial world can have dire economic results.

This is not the only attempt to monopolize electronic transactions. There are also big interests in Europe trying to gain control. Even before net marketing has had any chance to develop, greedy maneuverers (that often do their best to stay away from the public eye) are trying to set patterns that could be stifling for a free development of business online.

Of course there are fast "text" browsers such as Lynx, and browsers included in simple operating systems, such as Caldera’s WebSpyder.

More are coming. For instance a Czech programmer, Michael Polāk, has developed a browser called Arachne, that works on any old DOS computer (a 386 or even a 286) with full efficiency (including graphics). This suite includes other utilities, including a file manager, e-mail, telnet and FTP.

I don’ think we shall see this news reported widely in the general press, or even in specialized magazines. And it’s most unlikely that simple, efficient software will be offered in stores where unnecessarily expensive computers are sold. But there will be remarkable opportunities for wider use of the net if and when people find out that they don’t need expensive equipment. They can use their old computer; or buy one on the second-hand market for one tenth of the price of the latest innovation now announced by the trade – that of course will be called obsolete in a few months’ time.