Why?

Originally posted by SkepticOne

To build demand for broadband, in addition to bringing down the cost, you need to encourage non-essential uses such as reading on-line articles and communicating via message services like ICQ however this difficult with the clock ticking away and the euros adding up.

The stimulation of non-essential use requires the public to mentally connect the Internet with a _beneficial_ service AND it requires a service structure that is easy to comprehend.

Imagine if you would be an Internet novice and had never used it yourself. Now you want to read an on-line article and are trying to find it and to navigate around. If I have a newspaper in front of me, there are so many pages and I can't get lost. If I watch TV, there are 16 (or so) channels and I can go up and down, but I can't do much wrong. Put yourself in a novices shoes, would you agree that the Internet is vastly confusing and daunting? We all know - and even novices have heard it - there is nearly every bit of information available you could dream of. But would it not be a lot safer for me settle with a few sites like Hotmail, Irish Independent (because free) and Ryanair? After that a novice has to be concerned about "finding home" again!

Apart from the threatening aspect of the Internet, there is the questionable benefit. (This is not ME questioning it!) If you regularly read a newspaper, try this: Over the next week, search for articles in the newspaper that have anything to do with the Internet. You probably would find lots more articles about Child Pornography, sleaze and unsuitable material than about the benefits. Many people honestly think as soon as you connect to the Internet you are greeted by pictures of adult-only nature. Nobody is questioning the postal service because it can be used as a distribution channel for child pornography, but many people outright blame the Internet for the problem.

We have to do something to counteract this public impression. Is there a GOOD portal for Ireland that is suitable for novices? If not, it should be put together and promoted by organisations like IOFFL.

Only when we convince the novices that the Internet is not BAD, they will start being interested. The people that are watching the clock, as described in SkepticOne's posting, have already moved to Step 2. They are interested, but want more. Over all this let's not forget the ones that haven't even reached Step 1.

-Hornet

Originally posted by eircomtribunal
Education, information and other means of support are all welcome, but the most effective stimulant for this group is often overlooked: widespread Internet usage within the population (achieved mainly by low access costs). As long as only geeks, or well-educated or well-off are using it, all efforts to promote it among the last likely users will have very limited success.

Peter, I agree with you, but the "normative power of the factual" is still exposed to the chicken-and-egg problem:

To "activate" this normative power, we need to get "normal" people to use the Internet, but you are saying "normal" people will most likely become Internet users when the normative power is activated.

It really brings us back to the question, how can we get the "normal" people to use the Internet.

And that is exactly the question iwb raised: How can we get people to use the Internet.

So the challenge for _us_ is really to provide something to all three categories of Internet users (non-users, occasional users, experts) with their diverse requirements.

IOFFL is perceived as a grouping of experts fighting for the needs of the experts. I do believe this is not entirely true as the FRIACO discussion could benefit some of the occasional users as well, but in this last sentence I already made an unforgiveable mistake from the view point of the "non-users": I used an "expert-term", i.e. FRIACO.

---

I think IOFFL could take on the challenge if the members (and the leadership) would be happy to come down to the level of "non-users" and "occasional users".

But maybe it would be a better idea to avoid dilution of IOFFL efforts and to found an Irish Internet User Group with close links/co-operation between IOFFL and the User Group.

(Because of educational goal, this Irish Internet User Group could potentially even get sponsorship for educational projects (I am thinking of Internet Awareness Evenings in the local Parish Halls.))

I am happy to develop the idea further if there is interest.

Comments from all readers (including IOFFL officials), especially to the last suggestion are very welcome.

-Hornet

BTW:
In order to give the baby (user group) a name, I suggest "Internet in Ireland (III)". "III" is not only the abbreviation of the name, but is also the roman "3" which indicates the number of different user types III represents (non-users, occasional users, experts). In addition it indicates the number of interest groups "III" wants to bring around the table: Users, Industry and Government.

Should I start the domain registration process?

[Explanation: In this posting III stands for "Internet in Ireland" a proposed Interest Group for the promotion of the use of the Internet in Ireland.]

Originally posted by SkepticOne
This is an interesting idea. Of course it would mean different information leaflets. For example, we could not tell people that they are being ripped-off, for example, and how much cheaper it is in other countries, etc.

I guess the Step 1 group (non-users) are not primarly concerned with the prices in other countries, but there is nothing to stop III to openly support IOFFL and others in their fight for lower prices etc. However, it should not be the main goal. That's why I suggest a separate organisation outside of IOFFL.

The other thing to remember is that most of the money spent on the internet in Ireland goes to Eircom regardless of who the ISP is, so there is effectively no "vendor neutral" means of promoting the internet. You would be enforcing the dial-up monopoly rather than promoting competition which is desparately needed.

I have to disagree.

Promoting the use of the Internet is NOT counterproductive to increased competition. All the Wireless Operators use Eircom or Esat as little as possible, they they have definitely the opportunity to improve the competitive situation.
The fact that Eircom is the biggest dial-up ISP and therefore would have a proportinally higher benefit from improved Internet awareness doesn't make the promotion vendor-biased. In addition I should point out, that III should not only look after Newbies, but as well after occasional users (where dial-up might not be that attractive anymore) and after experts (where dial-up....I don't have to finish this sentence...).

Another way of countering your argument would be to ask: Do you think the competitive situation would improve or Eircom's market power would be reduced if the Internet awareness would NOT be raised. If you can answer YES to this, then I have to agree that the III idea is a bad one.

Finally, from what I've heard, satellite internet is basically unuseable from a web browsing point of view. Downloads are fairly fast, but interactive use is much much worse than the dial-up that people are currently forced to use. This would tend to put them off further I think. .

I never had the opportunity to try Internet access via Satellite, but from what I have heard, it seems that the browsing is fine, file download is fast, but gaming or real time stuff like ICQ et al is a bit painful. I don't know if it is unusable or only "a different user experience". The satellite access would be potentially suitable for a live demonstration during an event in a location where no other means are available. Maybe we could - in a discussion about the plus and minus of III - move away from a discussion of specific technologies for the moment. The most important question is: Do you think this idea is worth pursuing and could you see yourself contributing to it.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea and one that is worth exploring in the future. Maybe not by a campaign organisation with a specific message, but by a different group with different goals. It is worth exploring further.

Different group with different goals?? Interesting way of shooting III down in the night it was born!

But seriously, maybe you could explain this last statement a bit further. Do you think an Interest Group like III would not be the right vehicle? Who/what would be?

-Hornet

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Well, given that the main group that would directly and immediately benefit from such action, I would suggest the Eircom marketing department. I agree that the mouse campaign was rubbish, but this hypothetical interest group could give them free advice on how to run their campaigns.

Instead of a neutral and customer focused Interest Group, YOU (of all people) suggest that Eircom should turn it into a marketing event??

Do you really think this would give competitors a better chance? Do you think IrishWisp and LEAP and Irish Broadband and Via.NEtworks and who ever else has the potential to reduce Eircom's market power will be mentioned at an Eircom event in a favourable way?

Did evil spirits posess you when you came up with this idea?

SkepticOne, your suggestion sees me gob-smacked - and that is SOME achievement!

-Hornet

[Explanation: In this posting III stands for "Internet in Ireland" a proposed Interest Group for the promotion of the use of the Internet in Ireland.]


Any other opinions about the III idea from anybody?

Is it worth spending more time and effort discussing this idea or should we bury III and get back to the old business of complaining and doing nothing?

Any input from IOFFL (Dangger?)?

-Hornet

There is a dilemma looming:

One group is saying: We have enough demand, now we need decent, affordable Internet Access (i.e. Broadband or Flatrate). This group is (was) opposed by Telcos saying: There is not enough take-up on our previous offers, i.e. not enough demand for always-on Internet.

Now comes another group, saying: We need to raise the awareness of Internet usage, in other words, we need to stimulate the demand.

Isn't the second group kind of undermining the arguments of the first?

I personally don't think so. Both groups have their own justification and should cooperate, because both have the same goal: keeping Ireland in line with the worldwide development of Internet as part of our society and not becoming a underdeveloped country.

And back to the demand argument of the first group and their counterparts: the recent developments have shown that this is not longer an issue. Demand for Internet is perceived as a matter of course by all parties involved.

Matthy

Originally posted by Xian
Ah well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Real IIA reared its head again...

Never heard about it until I saw your link and has NOTHING to do with it.

Raising awareness is a possible solution. There are others who have reneged on their accepted responsibility for this:
[...]

To me that is not reason enough for doing nothing AS WELL!

To me, the thought of being in a Parish Hall, having tea with the vicar and showing him how to get onto the alt.theology list doesn't strike me as a solution to resolving this.

If there are another 20 people with the priest who want to know more about the Internet the event was worth it - it is totally irrelevant for what purpose people want to use the Internet as long as they get a benefit. I would put alt-theology and online gaming in the same category when it comes to relevance for society.
If the meeting would not be in the Parish Hall, but instead a class room full of parents, maybe you would see the situation in a different light.

I agree with ScepticOne that supply, not demand, remains the core issue for internet access in Ireland and the justifiable focus of IrelandOffline's efforts.

I will not enter into that discussion again as in my opinion both opinions are acceptable depending on the point of view (and the Internet literacy) of the person voicing this opinion.
Apart from that, I expressed already that I think IOFFL's efforts would be diluted if the "III" concept would be pursued by IOFFL itself.

We've been here two years now. The time will soon come when we must accept our share of the responsibility if Ireland continues to underperform in communications in the international arena.

After two years, I would think the time is HERE! Do we "accept responsibility" by doing nothing apart from complaining? I am not saying IOFFL is doing nothing, but the base of IOFFL in the Irish society as a whole is quite small. (I would not think that the mother who has concerns about using the Internet and who is worried about her child being online sees herself represented by IOFFL.) So what IOFFL does and has achieved will only indirectly or at a later stage benefit most of the people in the non-user and occasional user group. There is nobody doing anything do enable more people to understand what IOFFL is fighting for!

Our agreed solution is that getting more people on the internet, using the internet more, demanding (and getting) higher connection speeds causes more people to get on the internet, to use it more and demand higher connection speeds. Our agreed method of doing this is campaigning to make it affordable for people to get online, to stay online and to have access to higher connection speeds.

Do I interpret this statement right as an official IOFFL statement/policy? I have no issue with as a IOFFL position. I do, however, keep wondering if fighting for motorways when most people don't even have cars and don't understand how to use cars and what to use them for is the approach that would get more people to use cars.

Raising awareness is the responsibility of interested parties: Eircom, the Government, the Local Authorities. What is of interest to us is altruistic self-interest: getting affordable internet access.

If you are suggesting that IOFFL is not an interested party on the "raising awareness" list, the word "altruistic" might be the wrong one in this context. The interested party list (if exclusive) seems to me like running away from responsibility.

I don't agree that raising awareness is the responsibility of Eircom or the Local Authorities and the government has only a responsibility through education. Eircom is a commercial organisation (Ford will only raise car awareness if they directly benefit from it.) The local authorities don't play any role in it. The fact that they want fibre rings doesn't make them responsible for education. Raising awareness is IN THE INTEREST of all Telcos, all employers, all educational institutes and the government (local or central), but that doesn't make them responsible.

----

I appreciate that you contributed to the discussion!

Is this the official IOFFL opinion regarding the "III" idea? And would it be right to summarise it like this: Do whatever you want, as long as IOFFL doesn't need to get involved. IOFFL doesn't see raising Internet awareness as part of it's mission.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: This is an acceptable IOFFL position! I am not trying to imply that IOFFL better change their policies. (I might not be in favour of such an approach of an Internet lobby group, but that is irrelevant.)

-Hornet