Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-168"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.14.2-168"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we all know that the words ‘communication’, ‘information’, ‘networking’and ‘connection’ lead to the following two expressions: firstly, the information market and, secondly, the information society. Market or society. We are indeed dealing with a market. That much is certain. Everything is moving in that direction. It remains to be seen, however, what sort of a society we are dealing with.
Even though Mr van Velzen’s report is very technical, the purely technical issues end by confirming two other problems of a technical nature which are, moreover, brought up again in the amendments: access for all, democratic access to this information society market, and the definition of a public service, henceforth known as a universal service, without forgetting the development of the content of these information and communication networks, a content which seems to interest so few people, which never fails to amaze me.
Firstly, on the subject of democratic access, people will tell me that other reports and other programmes, the one on “e-learning” for example, exist to support the efforts made by European countries to promote access to the Internet and to new technologies. These programmes must not, however, be just a salve for the existing infrastructures, specifically the ones we are currently setting in place. May we hope for some consistency on this?
Next, what form can a universal service take nowadays? What undertakings must Europe and the Member States set themselves in this regard? Affordable access to all communication services is not enough to guarantee a universal service. We need financial commitments from the Member States in order to guarantee a public service, in schools and libraries for example, and we also need them to monitor the quality and diversity of the proposed information content.
This brings me to the matter of content. It might be feared that our reintroducing this question could be taken for an automatic reflex on our part. But how is it possible to agree to our opinion being consulted on the regulation or on competition without our being asked to deal with the matter of the content of information and communication?
At the present time, 94 of the world’s 106 most visited web sites are American. While Europe is certainly ahead of the United States in terms of mobile communication, it lags behind them specifically in relation to the handling of content. This reminder is, perhaps, just a reflex, as I tell myself every time our only concerns with regard to the new economy are the actual networks. Is it, however, possible that the matter has become urgent today?
I was pleased to note Amendments Nos 6 and 7 to the van Velzen report clearly acknowledging that the question of content was a problem. I also take the fact that, on 24 May, the Commission adopted a programme that was proposed to promote European content and multilingualism on the Internet, as a very good sign. It is only a start, but let us not forget that we also have the task of building a cultural Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples