July 1979 RAIN Page 7 •• • ••• •••• •• ••• ••• •••• •• • • • • •••• •• ••••• •• ••• •• ••• ••• ••••••••••• • • "I'm sure that CDC must be aware that the problem facing the U.S. farmer is not inadequate tech~ nology availability, but rather access to and control of markets, credit, and land and produce prices. If they are sincere about trying to a~sist the s:11all farmers, why do they propose technology in place • of these other more important needs?" "I can agree with the statement that if something is viable, it should work ·on the marketplace..However, the.marketplace as it currently stands is heavily skewed in favor of larger corporations and processes which take control away from the individual and focus it in fewer and fewer bands. The process CDC offers (,eeds into this understanding of the marketplace. ;,Control Data is not a misnomer. They don't give money away easily, and they will want 'control'." "CDC is trying to create a system offranchise farms, complete with starting kit, financi;1g, and CDC control of marketing in both direc_tions. ... "· "CDC is a "notoriously poor company." Most of their advanced technology, such as the PLATO terminals, were purchased, rather than developed in-house (e.g., PLATO from University of Illinois). They have been unable, through their entire history, to deliver working software. They underbid IBM to get a contract, then leave the user waiting for years to get the bugs out of the software-everybody becomes CDC's R&D lab. Technotec is unsuccessful. Their network is "backward"-is prone to errors and frequent crashes. CDC can't be dealt with as if invulnerable. ... " - "Don't forget that other programs which were "intended" to benefit the small farmer, programs such· as price supports and irrigation, came with time to shore up the profitability of the vertically integrated corporations involved with agribusiness. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the implications of an agricultural/a. t. data base, stripped of social contextwithin which these technologies have thus far been wrapped, and repackaged within the sleazy populism of the CDC proposal, will do anything to forestall the demise which threatens the small farmer in this country." "In the literature des~ribing Tecbnotec, Control Data makes it quite clear that they wa1-Jt to corner the market on information brokerage. They view information as a commodity which should be sold in a free market, competitive economy. Although they claim that Technotec is merely a means·of bringing problems and solutions into interactiP,n with each other, the way the system works keeps CDC firmly in control, and every part of the transaction has its price. There is a charge for listing ($400 per item per year), and a charge for searching ($90/hour). Then, even if you find a possible source for the technology YOZf • seek, you have to pay a further charge ($50-$400 or . more) for the name of the _source. This last charge, the so-called 'Contact Price' is determined by the subscriber-which encourages subscribers to think of their information as~ commodity and to charge what the market will bear. Obviously, the parties in transactions facilitated over such a system will be entrepreneurs, and participation by those who could most benefit by information exchange is excluded. The rich, and the information-rich, get to meet each other. in Technotec's computerized cocktail party." - "Interestingly, the Tecbnotec literature also discusses technology transfer in relation to the world population problem: stating that because population will double, "we will have to double the physical volume of aU- our existing infrastructures, be they ind7:strial production facilities, social services, communications networks, agric,ultural production, educational services or ho__using facilities." And CDC proposes that existing technology sources use Technotec to trans[er (sell) their technologies to the rapidly growing market. In other words, this is a system that perpetuates and facilitates technological colonialism, without"a_ddressing the question of why the 'existing infrastructures' still leave 213 of the world's people in relative misery. A simple doubling of inJrastructure.s does nothing to change power relationships."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz