The third approach is to follow the market and allow a network to develop according to demand, which basically happened with Minitel, despite the French Government not intending it to serve the sex industry, which also dominates the Internet.

The third approach involves the risk of not knowing what kind of network will eventually emerge, Fischer says, but it is the best path to acceptability. He adds that the spread of the Internet in France was not so much limited by the presence of Minitel but the failure of the Net to provide a clear cost or service advantage over the existing format.

VeriSign Inc. President Tony Rutkowski argues that the Minitel example offers a lesson in the dangers of governments trying to force a technical standard on electronic networks. He says the French government spent billions via Minitel trying to support OSI (Open System Interconnection) against Internet and other de facto protocols.

Branscomb rejoined saying France tried to achieve two somewhat incompatible objectives with one strategy -- introducing 5 million households to digital networking, while establishing a standard for interoperability within France.

The giving away of free hardware achieved both objectives but locked in an architecture and set of protocols that could not survive on the world stage, while too little attention was given to the development of applications.

A more general purpose device architecture, able to handle the alternative TCP/IP standard, would have resulted in faster acceptance of electronic networks in France.

He suggests that the basic policy issue facing governments is to decide whether it is better to create technology options that allow markets to develop, or select and nurture the markets that drive technology. The U.S. prefers the first option, he says, while Europe is drawn to the second.

The discussion sets the stage for the Tokyo conference, where many of the valuable insights arising from the e-mail discussion will be taken up.

The proliferation of devices with different operating systems and the staking out of exclusive territories by rival firms are also identified as impediments to universality.

Other concerns include the risk of governments relying on old models to regulate broadcasting over broadband networks which are oblivious to national boundaries. Pressure is also mounting for greater discussion on the issue of freedom and privacy posed by the spread of microchips, linked by universal networks and capable of monitoring our every move.

University of Maryland Professor Ernest Wilson starkly presents the situation facing developing countries struggling to keep pace in the information age, saying they must ask themselves, what is the cost of not being connected to a ubiquitous network. He says more research is needed to demonstrate the cost of exclusion before truly global networks are possible. His concern is supported by Bruno Levin, senior advisor at the World Bank on e-commerce and e-government matters.

Bruce McConnell, president of technology consultancy firm McConnell International LLC, also calls on private industry and NGOs to persuade developing nations to take the plunge so they are not left behind. He also argues that security will become the Achilles' heel of ubiquitous networks, unless guarantees are given that private information will only go to its intended destination. Another of his worries is government reaction to the threatened loss of national sovereignty posed by global networks. He also urges more discussion on whether ubiquitous networks will liberate or imprison us through the spread of devices able to monitor our lives.

This concern drew a response from Sadahiko Kano, a lawyer, executive adviser to NTT and visiting professor at Waseda and Edinburgh universities. He said the Japanese discussion has focused on the meaning of the term "ubiquitous networks." Are they passive links for people to consciously connect a variety of devices via the Internet, or a more proactive space where increasingly hard-to-notice sensors in cameras, hidden microphones, light detectors and the like monitor us, even if we do not have a computer? He calls for a regulatory framework to protect privacy and the development of ways to avoid unwanted intrusion by constant networks.

Establishing a globally coordinated and distributed contents directory service is a looming challenge, according to Hiroshi Esaki of the University of Tokyo, raising questions related to business models, technology and copyright, all requiring global collaboration to solve.

Former IBM Corp. Chief Scientist and now Emeritus Professor at Harvard University Lewis Branscomb fears a world of chaos is developing as commercial interests dictate trends in IT architecture and information services.

He says the future of a global network depends on multilingual search engines capable of instant translations, and intermediary services offering high quality data assessment and editing. But he fears the bewildering variety of networked devices, with their own operating systems and lacking any integrative architecture, will lead to chaos and a division between devices for personal and entertainment purposes and those for business use.

Branscomb believes current restructuring trends might result in large firms offering both network and content services, producing a stovepipe structure in the IT industry, where each firm seeks to control its content and customer list, while limiting interconnection with other networks.

His view prompted a response from VeriSign Inc. Vice President Tony Rutkowski who points out that, historically, openness has won out over proprietary solutions in building networks. Branscomb replied that he fears that the greater variety of classes of network users could prevent the development of a common interest.

David Olive, deputy general manager of Fujitsu's Washington D.C. Office, asks whether, under Branscomb's scenario, governments would rush to regulate. He also asks whether the need for the global contents directory envisioned by Esaki would be hampered by national broadcasting rules, prompting Esaki to respond that rule changes are unavoidable.

Rutkowski also makes a passionate plea for entrepreneurial chaos, saying attempts by governments to impose the OSI (open system interconnection) protocol resulted in much time and billions of dollars being spent without success.

A provocative but nonetheless serious view comes from Bradley Bartz, founder of e-mail provider service JMAIL Co., who asks, what if consumers are not interested in faster broadband networks. He fears inertia could set in as consumers resist the extra costs associated with broadbanding.

Logistics expert Ken Lyon, founder of a company which handles supply chain problems, says it is difficult to foresee where constant, readily available high-speed networks will take us. He says predictions that advanced planning and forecasting systems would revolutionize manufacturing processes have failed to materialize, mainly because such information rich systems need to be highly focused and adaptable to particular needs. He calls on governments to allow broadband networks to evolve naturally and resist the temptation to regulate too closely.

Bill St. Arnaud of the nonprofit group CANARIE, which promotes Internet development in Canada, says the spread of widespread broadband networks is constrained because useful infrastructure is in the hands of existing monopolistic telephone and cable firms. He advocates condominium or customer-owned fiber networks and calls on governments to show leadership, not by building such networks, but by transferring business to condominium network operators and providing other forms of financial support. (End)