Social and Economic Technology - 8.3. What needs to be done?
Why Secotek needs Public Funding.
Implementing Secotek represents many cost savings that in the long term will much more than pay for the costs of it. Secotek is as much a political will to make the rural economy succeed as it is an electronic system.
The most significant difference between big business and rural Information Technology would have to be in the approach to support. Big business always has demanded particular, quite often complex services from its Information Technology facilities, and this is typically provided by a team of trained, highly paid, specialized staff. Providing this service is generally of quite significant cost to the business. There is no way an isolated individual or even a small family sized business can afford staff such as this to physically visit places in the countryside and solve the problems in a rural environment. (Although even this approach could arguably be justified if the economy as a whole is considered.) What is needed is a system that is designed for the rural economy and be affordable by the anticipated users. In order to use support, the individual users will have to receive a certain amount of training. They would be trained how to use an automated support system that would be specifically aimed at them, rural users not computer geeks. However, this would need to be backed up by a telephone support system provided, of course, by rural workers experienced with the system. Hence support is provided for computing systems that are not owned and maintained by relatively expensive IT departments of large businesses.
The cost of a rural Information Technology system would therefore be divided into five areas. The cost of writing or adapting the software, the cost of distributing the software, the cost of the communication infrastructure, the cost of support, and the cost of the hardware. Of these, the distribution costs should be insignificant. The cost of the hardware can be kept affordable, and not be part of a planned redundancy cycle. In general, acquired hardware would be one step back from that used in industry, for cost saving reasons, and the support offered would not be geared to apply pressure to pointlessly replace hardware that is satisfactory for the task. The communication infrastructure, based on Internet Technology, is already affordable, and it is sufficient. (Although widespread use of ISDN would produce a significant pay-off). However, the government needs to sponsor the adoption of publicly available software, (currently often called 'Linux'), to be specifically orientated to rural needs. Then the government needs to sponsor promotion of the system and the support so that it really takes a hold and transforms the rural economy to be self sustaining and vibrant. What is stated here is completely in line with every aim of objective 1 funding, and other monies set aside for rural revival. The suggestions, if followed through would have a significant impact on the road traffic problems, and replace significant pressures to subsidize public transport in rural areas. The suggestions are also extremely environmentally friendly.
Taxes are raised to pay for conventional transport (e.g. community and school transport, besides talk of public transport subsidy.) Taxes are also raised to pay for roads, libraries, and other public services. If a rural style technological infrastructure were to be adopted, savings in these alone would more than pay for it. It makes economic sense in its own right quite apart from the social and cultural benefits. Besides that there are actually no shortage of different funded projects aimed at attempting to revive a rural economy because it is so essential. For example, the statements here are completely in line with all the stated aims of objective 1 funding.