Technology and International Collaboration at the ... · Technology and International Collaboration...

Technology and International Collaboration at the Millennia by Charles L. Mitchell

An Abstract

Internet conferencing technology has recently made some significant developments. The experimental era of Internetconferencing appears to be in the past. 2000 finds some highly satisfactory techniques available for Internet Conferencing. Excellent audio connections, Powerpoint presentation, application sharing, white board, text chat, andvideo connections make the 2000 Internet conference room sophisticated. With recent qualitative developments, Internet conferencing succeeds in even the most demanding situations. Present conferencing techniques offer presenters enough alternatives to allow creative strengths in presentation to be significant in conferencing.

This paper recommends using CentraNow software in combination with IVisit when computer RAM is adequate to allow both programs to be run simultaneously. CentraNow’s software creates an Internet meeting room thoroughly conducive to excellent conferencing. With CentraNow the meeting leader controls how events happens using Powerpoint to maintain an agenda. The meeting leader can promote any meeting attender allowing them full use of the software for their own Powerpoint presentation and use of application sharing. A file can be created as a record of the meeting of exchanges that occur in text chat.IVisit compliments CentraNow by allowing a video connection between meeting attenders. An extremely user friendlysoftware, IVisit establishes video links between those attending a meeting. The IVisit software creates small video images which can be enlarged to allow attenders to look in on each others environments.

Technological change in Internet conferencing suggests that this combination is only the beginning of the advantageous conferencing arrangements that will become possible over Internet. New conferencing programs allowthose conferencing to direct their Internet browsers toward a specified web page whilePersonal computer based software takes over and creates a meeting room. The simplicity and ultimate user friendly nature of this development indicates Internet conferencing may become substantially a more significant factor in the future.

With excellent conferencing technology now existing and even better conferencing alternatives ahead, who can be conferenced with on Internet? Data the author has collected from two domains he maintains, casayego.com and heceta.com, indicate that Internet has considerable global reach at present. Some countries have extensive Internet development, other only weak beginnings, and some no Internet access data at all.

Explaining differences among countries, this paper looks at variables including Internet organization, choice of searchengine, and browser choice to attempt identify differences among countries. The hypothesis emerges that two scenarios for Internet development contribute to who is on-line for Internet conferencing.Decentralization and diversity produce a market directed Internet development. Centralization and uniformity results in a command oriented Internet development.

In answering who will be on-line in a decade, the command oriented perspective on Internet indicates that Internet development could be significant. Competition between some countries is observed to create an arms race analogy in Internet development. Command oriented policy for Internet development is possible is national leaders perceive Internet development in their national interest. Without command policy for Internet market oriented theories of Internet development are likely to determine and increasing disparity between those countries that already have substantial Internet and those countries now without muchInternet development.

Technology and International Collaboration at the Millennia

by Charles L. Mitchell

The technology for international collaboration is found throughout the world at the Millennia. Among the remarkable features of Internet's development is the capacity of Internet for international collaboration that has beenproduced. This paper looks at the international collaboration phenomena as a combination of two factors. First, international collaboration requires technology. The computer resources in hardware and software need be available. Second, international collaboration oriented technology need be in the hands of those who can benefit from such cooperative activities. This paper intends to substantiated the extent to which both of these conditions are present at the millennia.

The technology for international collaboration over the Internet is already rather sophisticated. Cooperation can readily be achieved from any computer with Internet access. Depending on the technological capabilities of the computer, excellent audio, video, whiteboard, and application sharing are possible among those conferencing. The directions that Internet conferencing technology is taking indicate that in a few years much more sophisticated techniques will become common. Internet conferenc-ing appears to be well-established and undeniably becoming more sophisticated and effortless.

Internet technology can be shown to be establishing a substantial rapport with people throughout the world. This paper intends to look country by country at how Internet is establishing itself in several leading Internet countries. As for evaluating international collaboration at the millennia, data presented here establishes a substantial capabilities for cooperation in many countries. One cannot, however, look at a world map without awareness of disparities in Internet capabilities.

The perspective this analysis produces on Internet's development indicates the condi-tions that allowing substantial Internet activity. Those countries with considerable Internet activity are useful to study since they produce likely scenarios for Internet development throughout the world. Internet data provides evidence of the vote and of what would social organization that appears a prerequisite of Internet development. While all countries with substantial Internet activity do not have exactly the same organizational development, similarities deserves considerable attention.

The paper considers the issue of the digital divide in attempting to project how Internet will resolve or increase this problem. The Internet data analysis which is included here considers development strategies. By looking at how Internet has developed in several areas of the world, the likely scenario for future developments through the remained of the world appears. From the established patterns for creating substantial Internet involvement, some ideas about how the less developed world could organize digitally become recognizable.

2

Possibly, the most significant contribution this paper makes is to better explain what Internet development throughout the world would be like. From patterns of social interaction already established, one can discern the direction digital development likely would take in the less computer ready countries. Observations about centralization and decentralization, demassification of media, and product innovation can be made. Those conditions that negativelyaffect Internet development can be identified. Discussion then become possible about whether these conditions are likely to resolved in favor of more digital development.

This cross national analysis results from a discussion of who there is to Internet conference with in various areas of the world. The data presented here is from analyzing Internet accesses. This Internet access data presents who there is to Internet conference with now. Beyond that, however, access data is useful because from this data one can discern who will likely acquire Internet strength in the decades ahead. While exact conclusion about further globalization cannot be made, some generalized conclusions are definitely possible. We can identify trends in social conditions likely to produce more people who want to Internet conference in the decade ahead.

The Technology for Internet Conferencing

Internet conferencing technology is developing quickly and the sophistication of what is available is rapidly increasing. The recent innovation that has given begun changing Internet conferencing around is the user friendly nature of new softwares in this area.Until rather recently, setting up an Internet conference was a difficult feat even for those rather high in computer literacy.

The problem was that while you could possibly set together a meeting of three or more people there were some unsolvable problems. Basically, the best one could expect to achieve among a large group was text chat. With text chat each person could type their comments on their own keyboard and the other participating in the conference could then read these comments. Text chat did allow for interaction among a group, but the sophistication of this meeting technique was limited. Those attending such meeting left with a belief that the meeting technique was something less than completely sound. These text chat meeting made no significant impression on those attending.

This same flaw carried over into other types of conferencing schemes. If one established an audio connection between several people, numerous possible failures could occur. Sometimes the audio would altogether fail with more than three people. The audio conference, even if the number who could meet was resolved, was disappointing because the computer technology via Internet did not add anything to what could be accomplished with an ordinary conference call on the telephone.

Video conferencing was, also, very weak. Again, the number three was the upper limit video conference techniques were intended to accommodate. Even experts simply could not get the sound and video together dependably for larger groups. Software such as CU-SeeMe could put together possibly three people, but beyond that balancing the audio and the video became impractical. Video conferencing on Internet has been without polish to the extent that one could not suggest this as a formalistic alternative for bring people together. The technology for Internet video conferencing has been not much more than experimental. Internet enthusiasts have like improving their computer literacy in the area of Internet video conferencing but little more has been possible.

3

Recently, a major change has begun to occur that has again made Internet conferencing a viable alternative for bringing people together. Recently, conferencing softwares have begun to appear that are conscious of the need for meeting technologies that are sophisti-cated. Conference situations that have exacting requirements in technical proficiency and satisfying results can now be supported over the Internet.

Recent innovations have significantly revitalized Internet conferencing possibilities. Now, one can approach the meeting situation over Internet with real confidence. The present technology has the sophistication to please in eventhe most demanding situa-tions. Technology has succeeded adequately that the imagination can move ahead with reasonable confidence.

Computers of 2000 have larger memories than their predecessors, and supporting two or more applications, at once, further enhances the possibilities for Internet conferencing. When one connects with two computer conferencing softwares, the number of confer-encing features increases. Redundancy between the two conferencing softwares is, also, a confidence builder the is valuable in increasing the acceptability of the conferencing technique. Between two conferencing softwares, at present, it is possible to get excellent audio, powerpoint presentations, application sharing, text chat, and video of those attend-ing. Internet conferencing has undeniably matured adequately that techniques now exist that produce pleasing results in even the most demanding situations.

This paper’s recommend technique for Internet conferencing combines the CentraNow conference produce with the video conferencing software IVisit. When these two products are used simultaneously, one gets a first rate audio conference room together with web cam video of all those who join the meeting with web cams on their desk. The experience creates a authentic sense of presence. People are together over Internet and the conference environment is conducive to many types of productive activities.

CentraNow’s software creates the basic meeting room environment. The conference room has developed by CentraNow is a controlled environment with multiple alternatives for interaction. When one enters the CentraNow conference room, one discovers numerous tools for communication at hand. Audio exists allowing all participating to express themselves to the others attending the meeting. Text chat is present as well enabling communication with the keyboard. The presence of two techniques for making oneself heard is nicely reinforcing. Additionally, Powerpoint slides can be presented and computer applications shared among meeting attenders. Whiteboard is present and all attenders can draw upon the computer screen using this tool. The first time attender quickly perceivesthat this is a sophisticated setting for conferencing. The CentraNow meeting room succeeds in reassuring that this isa user friendly environment so those with little computer background are, at once, welcome.

The meeting leader is in charge of how events progress in a CentraNow meeting. The leader can change the Powerpoint slides that all attending view. Powerpoint is an invaluable tool in maintaining an orderly agenda. A CentraNow meeting does not drifting aimlessly, rather Powerpoint keep the discussion nicely directed. Each idea is there for the attenders to reason with exactly, and the presenter is able to elaborate on his outline in a normal manner.

Application sharing allows creative presentations whose strengths are determined only by the ingenuity of the presenter. Any program that runs on one’s computer can be shared with the other meeting attenders. If one is giving a presentation featuring statistics, the statistical package can be displayed to the attenders. The presenter can manipulate the statistical package performing various statistical procedures while the attenders all watch on their screens. Similarly were one presenting about computer graphics, a graphics program could be displayed and graphictechniques demonstrated. The possibilities for using application sharing are limitless. Anything the computer is capable of can be displayed to meeting attenders. Application sharing has an unusual ability to add emphasis to a presentation.

Text chat in the CentraNow software allows both a public and private chat. Public chat sends text messages to all those attending the meeting. Private chat enables each attender to communicate secretly with the meeting leader. Using private chat every person attend-ing the conference can carry on confidential text chat conversation with the

4

meeting leader while the meeting is in progress. Those who require a record be kept of the meeting can accomplish this objective with text chat. All the text chat proceeding canbe saved in a text file creating a record of the meeting.

Whiteboard is a user friendly device that allows all those attending an Internet conference to mark up the computer screen. Attenders can add stars, pins, draw, and highlight what appears on the screen. This is an excellent tool for welcoming participants and making them believe they are useful together in the conference room.

IVisit software supplements CentraNow effectively and can be run simultaneously by any computer with enough RAM to support both applications at once. The user friendly properties of IVisit recommend this software for establishing the video connection among those conferencing. IVisit uses an software based Internet server to establish the video conference link. All one does to put this together is run the IVisit software program and chose the designated conference room from the IVisit directory of conferencing rooms.

Upon entering the conference being used by one’s meeting, miniature pictures of all the others attending the meetingappear. By clicking on one of these miniatures, a large video image appears from the other attender’s location. You can, thus, see who you are talking with and look in on each attenders environment. IVisit is useful in improving the sense of presence that exist in the conference environment.

The IVisit software has an audio connection feature that works excellent for two people. The quality of the audio connection does not, however, hold up for three or more people.Like other video conference products such as CU-SeeMe, the audio/video combination found in IVisit is still in the experimental stages of development. In a conference situation that demands proficiency, the audio of IVisit is best turned off in favor of the CentraNow’s qualitative audio. Technology only develops at an accelerating rate, and Internet conferencing technology is no exception. Recent innovations in Internet conferencing indicate that some profound changes in conferencing capabilities are possibly in the offing. Basically, the direction that conferencing innovations are taking is toward an increasingly user friendly conferencing environment. Being able to convene people with little computer experience quickly in a non-complicated conference arrangement has significantly increases the number of situations where Internet conferencing could be valuably employed.

An example of the technological innovations is found in the Odigo software. With this product all one need do to establish the conference environment is to have participants direct their Internet browser to the same URL on the Internet. The meeting leader could set up an Internet conference web page and ask other participants to direct their Internet browsers to this page at meeting time. The Odigo software takes over from there and creates a meeting environment among all those running Odigo whose browsers have loaded the specified Internet page.

As yet, Odigo’s capabilities for conferencing are not well developed. Only a text chat room and whiteboard are presently supported. An audio conferencing capability is in the development stage, however. Prospectively, Odigo could well support audio and video connection between participants. As technology advances, softwares like Odigo are likely to significantly increase the situations where Internet conferencing can effectively be used. One example of Odigo’s usefulness is in education. Using Odigo, an instructor can ask his students to locate a specified page on the Internet at a given time. When the students and instructor access the designated web page, the Odigo program on their respective computers could take over and create a conference environment among them.

The development of Internet conference technologies has reached the stage where the creative imagination of potential users is in charge. Undeniably the possibilities for successful Internet conferences in even the most demanding situations presently exists. Internet conference technology of 2000 is user friendly and those with little computer experience can quickly succeed with conferencing techniques. The ability 2000 Internet conference technologies have for effective presentations allow substantial ingenuity in the devising of qualitative meetings.

5

Future technological developments appear to be conference environment oriented. New techniques for conferencingwill have the ability to create an increasingly sophisticated conference room utilizing software located on the attenders’ computers. Conferencing softwares on each computer could take over once a connection is established by tuning in a common web page. The eventual sophistication of this conference environment is difficulty to estimate, but given the significant developments that have recently occurred in computer technology, one can imagine some very high proficient meeting rooms are likely appear in the years ahead. Developments in Internet conferencing may profoundly change the usefulness of computers with a proliferation of conferencing events becoming a prominent new social reality.

Whose On-Line to Conference with Now and in the Decade Ahead?

Internet is undeniably a global phenomena. Those who have written discussing the affects of the the Information Technologies Revolution always emphasize the global nature of recent developments. (Castels, p.11) Traditional economic patterns of cooperation are no longer determined by regionalism with the increasing importanceof information technology. Cooperation can occur between people at great distancesas effortlessly as between those who are geographically near.

Data gathered by the author of this paper supports this conclusion. The author has maintained two domain names the have diverse content for several years. These domain names—casayego.com and heceta.com—produce a valuable amount of data about Internet and who accesses Internet. This data is useful in discussing who now is on-line to and ready for Internet conferencing. The data found in user access logs is further useful in attempting to devise scenarios for Internet development affecting the remainder of the world.

Those who discuss Internet from the perspective of the digital divide suggest that the likely result of the revolution in information technologies is a deepening division between the have and have not nations. Data collected by this paper’s author is useful in explaining various possibly scenarios for Internet development. This data can, also, possibly identify conditions that preclude or inhibit Internet development in countries where there is not much computer strength at present.

One impetus for digital development that the digital divide perspective downplays is highlighted by the data discussed in this paper. That impetus is the arms race analogy of Internet development. If one studies those countries most prominent in Internet development, one must observe possible race occurring to create a computer powerful South America. Brazil’s Internet involvement is truly phenomenal. Traditional perspectives on international relations reasonably would question whether Brazil is racingwith the United Kingdom or Germany to attain a superiority in computer strength.

The premises of the Information Technology Revolution are that patterns of cooperation need not necessarily correspond with regionalism. (Carnoy, p.1) One could suggest that a corollary of this rule is that patterns of conflict might, also, occur with less respect for regionalism. In analyzing who is powerful in Internet in 2000, one need question whether patterns of conflict can be observed that do not follow ordinary regional explanations.

Once the arms race analogy for Internet development is introduced, some of the assump-tions of the digital divide people appear questionable. Nations contend to amass strength in irrational ways. Sudden government expenditures can spur rapid development in an area if the area is deemed significant for national defense. Countries that now do not appear to have enough ordinary economic incentives to develop Internet, may prove surprising if thearms race aspects of Internet development become dominant.

6

This section first considers who is available in 2000 for Internet conference. The author’s own data provides a perspective on who is Internet attentive at present.Table One presents data the author has gathered about who accesses casayego.com between March 26 and June 29, 2000. Table Two has similar data for access to heceta.com between these same dates. The data reported in both tables is about number of user sessions. A user session occurs when a person access the domain name. Basically, allthe activity that occurs in one interaction with a website is subsumed in the user sessions. The data presents the average length of the user session..

Table One Casayego.Com User Sessions March 26-June 29, 2000

Most Active CountriesCountries Visitor

Sessions1 United States 43,2892 UK 1,4583 Germany 7604 Netherlands 6175 France 615

7

6 Brazil 6007 Sweden 5758 AU 5509 Spain 472

10 Italy 46911 Canada 42412 Belgium 30213 Mexico 23214 Taiwan 21815 Finland 20216 Switzerland 19917 Japan 17318 New Zealand (Aotearoa) 16919 Portugal 14820 Argentina 14621 Singapore 14222 Austria 12323 Denmark 10624 Norway 10325 Chile 7726 Qatar 75

27 Greece 7028 Poland 6929 South Africa 6430 Malaysia 6231 Israel 6132 Czech Republic 5933 Hong Kong 4934 Ireland 4235 Russian Federation 4136 Turkey 2637 Hungary 2638 Estonia 2439 Peru 2440 Colombia 2141 Thailand 2042 Luxembourg 2043 Croatia (Hrvatska) 1844 Slovenia 1745 Indonesia 1746 Iceland 1747 China 1548 Uruguay 1449 Yugoslavia 1350 Philippines 1251 PR 1252 Lithuania 1153 Romania 1054 Slovak Republic 855 Bolivia 756 Lebanon 657 Venezuela 558 Korea (South) 559 Cyprus 4

8

60 Ukraine 461 Macedonia 462 India 363 Latvia 364 El Salvador 365 Sri Lanka 366 Trinidad and Tobago 367 Mauritius 368 Tanzania 369 Bulgaria 270 Arab Emirates, United 271 Ecuador 272 USSR (former) 273 Egypt 274 Brunei Darussalam 275 Sao Tome and Principe 176 Faroe Islands 177 Virgin Islands (U.S.) 178 Paraguay 179 Armenia 180 Vatican City State (Holy See) 181 Monaco 182 Gibraltar 183 Bermuda 184 Nepal 185 Zimbabwe 186 Georgia 187 Heard and McDonald Islands 188 Botswana 189 Oman 190 French Polynesia 191 Malta 192 Guatemala 1

Total 53,172

9

Table Two Heceta.Com User Sessions March 26-June 29, 2000

Most Active CountriesCountries Visitor

Sessions1 United States 25,5522 Brazil 4873 Germany 4034 UK 3735 Netherlands 2316 AU 2127 Canada 1878 France 1439 Singapore 136

10 Japan 11711 Spain 10012 Italy 9313 Taiwan 8414 Mexico 7615 Switzerland 6416 Belgium 58

10

17 New Zealand (Aotearoa) 5618 South Africa 4419 Malaysia 4220 Poland 3621 Sweden 3622 Argentina 3423 Austria 3124 Greece 3125 Israel 2926 Portugal 2827 Finland 2528 Chile 2329 Denmark 1930 Qatar 1931 Norway 1732 Czech Republic 1633 Thailand 1634 Saudi Arabia 1635 Hong Kong 1536 Ireland 1337 Indonesia 1138 Colombia 939 Romania 940 India 941 Luxembourg 842 Russian Federation 843 Hungary 744 China 745 Peru 646 Croatia (Hrvatska) 647 Trinidad and Tobago 548 Uruguay 549 Turkey 450 PR 451 Korea (South) 452 Yugoslavia 453 Arab Emirates, United 454 Slovak Republic 455 Bolivia 456 Philippines 457 Ukraine 358 Brunei Darussalam 259 Estonia 260 Lithuania 261 Botswana 162 Maldives 163 Lebanon 164 El Salvador 165 Slovenia 166 Zambia 167 Venezuela 168 Iceland 169 Bulgaria 170 Mauritius 171 Zimbabwe 1

11

72 Oman 173 Cyprus 1

Total 29,006

The maps included with Table One and Table Two present that Internet development is reaching throughout the world. The digital divide perspective can find considerable support for the have and have not nations perspective inthis data. Those countries with substantial internet activity are presented in blue and red. Countries with only low Internet activity are yellow and magenta. The digital divide may authentically be occurring between these two groups of countries.

The surprisingly small number of accesses for giant countries like Russia and China does not adequately convince that these countries are likely to become digital superpowers.Obviously, both countries have many academic or government oriented Internet connections, but even the suggestion of a mass Internet phenomena is completely lacking.Conversely, countries like Brazil, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Canada, Mexico, and Argentina have data that appears to indicate an authentic popular Internet phenomena has already begun.

From the international relations perspective, the digital divide lines are still difficult to follow. Large nations including Russia and China are undeniably not quickly promotingInternet development as of 2000. Middle East countries are similarly not now devoting much attention to substantialInternet development. Despite other indications of international strength, Middle East countries are shown by the author’s data to be lagging behind in Internet development.

Africa does not evidence Internet development to any substantial extent. While Sub-Saharan does produce Internet access most of the accessers are in South Africa. African countries have until this time produced only a small number of Internet accesses. The data presented in Table One and Table Two does report that Internet reaches several African countries, but there is not much to support the hypothesis that a popular Internet phenomena is developing in these countries.

The Internet data reported in this paper is useful in attempting to answer questions about the conditions that produce Internet development. Possibly, by analyzing a few variables related to the development of Internet we can gain some answers to why Internet develops or to what inhibits Internet development. Specifically, this paper compares three variables related to diversity in different nations. The variables analyzed here areorganizational structure of Internet, diversity of search engines favored by Internet accessers, and choice of browser.

The basic hypothesis that directs analysis of these three variables is does decentralization and diversity with a country create a readiness of Internet development. All three of these variables tell something about the continuum from centralized and uniform to decentralized and diverse. The hypothesis that emerges indicates that the a substantial amount of development toward the decentralized and diverse is required for significant Internet development to occur.

Table Three General Statistics for Casayego.Com by Countries March 26-June 29, 2000

The General Statistics table includes statistics on the total activity for this web site during the designated time frame. 12

Europe

United Kingdom

Statistics - Report Range: 03/26/2000 00:00:00 - 06/30/2000 03:05:52Hits Entire Site (Successful) 23,229

Average Per Day 239Home Page 40

Page Views Page Views (Impressions) 1,270Average Per Day 13Document Views 1,270

Visitor Sessions Visitor Sessions 1,450Average Per Day 14Average Visitor Session Length 00:06:50International Visitor Sessions 100%Visitor Sessions of Unknown Origin 0%Visitor Sessions from United States 0%

Visitors Unique Visitors 404Visitors Who Visited Once 343Visitors Who Visited More Than Once 61

Germany




Visitor Sessions Visitor Sessions 768Average Per Day 7Average Visitor Session Length 00:04:42International Visitor Sessions 100%Visitor Sessions of Unknown Origin 0%Visitor Sessions from United States 0%


Netherlands


13





France






Sweden



Page Views Page Views (Impressions) 403Average Per Day 4Document Views 403

Visitor Sessions Visitor Sessions 573Average Per Day 5Average Visitor Session Length 00:04:51

14

International Visitor Sessions 100%Visitor Sessions of Unknown Origin 0%Visitor Sessions from United States 0%


North America

Canada






Mexico




Visitor Sessions Visitor Sessions 235Average Per Day 2Average Visitor Session Length 00:07:43International Visitor Sessions 100%

15

Visitor Sessions of Unknown Origin 0%Visitor Sessions from United States 0%


South America

Brazil






Argentina




Visitor Sessions Visitor Sessions 149Average Per Day 1Average Visitor Session Length 00:05:46International Visitor Sessions 100%Visitor Sessions of Unknown Origin 0%

16

Visitor Sessions from United States 0%Visitors Unique Visitors 85

Visitors Who Visited Once 74Visitors Who Visited More Than Once 11

Oceania

Australia






Asia

Japan

Hits Entire Site (Successful) 7,485Average Per Day 77Home Page 20


Visitor Sessions Visitor Sessions 173Average Per Day 1Average Visitor Session Length 00:03:52International Visitor Sessions 100%Visitor Sessions of Unknown Origin 0%

17

Visitor Sessions from United States 0%Visitors Unique Visitors 158

Visitors Who Visited Once 153Visitors Who Visited More Than Once 5

Taiwan


Average Per Day 113

Home Page 2Page Views Page Views (Impressions) 351

Average Per Day 3Document Views 351



In readings through this general data about Internet access, ask which variables found within these tables could be used in support of the decentralization, diversity hypothesis.While there are several possibilities, length of user sessions is possibly best. Countries where there is substantial development in this direction could be hypothesized to support longer user access session. In countries with more centralized and uniform norms, appraisal of web page possibly occurs quick with more summary evaluation occurring.

The data presented in Table Four possibly is the most significant found in this paper in support ofanalysis of what produces Internet development. Obviously, a countries Internet could either be developed from a central authority or from many diverse service providers. The country graphs found in Table Four are excellent indication of how diverse Internet service providers are in the various countries.

In analyzing the data in Table Four be sure to compare the graphs for Canada, Australia, and Japan with the graphs for the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The difference between these two groups is substantial. Canada, Australia, and Japan all show considerable

18

decentralization and diversity. United Kingdom, Germany, and France appear to have allowed Internet to develop more nearly under the control of a single authority.

The data in Table Four appears to require that our hypothesis about decentralization and diversitybe somewhat modified. A second possible scenario for Internet develop can be discerned from the data in Table Four. Internet development can be hypothesized in the alternative to develop under the auspices of a central authority promoting digital development.

The new hypothesis is considerably more supportive of the arms race model of Internet development than the first. While much attention has been directed at Internet developing because of social and economic conditions, little attention has focused on government encouraged promotion of Internet. Table Four requires that the second hypothesis be given somemore consideration among the possible explanations for whyInternet develops in some countries.

19

Table Four Most Active Organizations for Casayego.Com by Countries March 26-June 29, 2000

This section identifies the companies or organizations that accessed the site the most often.

Europe United Kingdom

Most Active OrganizationsOrganizations Hits % of Total

HitsVisitor

Sessions1 pol.co.uk 7,971 34.36% 9792 Demon Internet

demon.co.uk2,119 9.13% 65

3 global.net.uk 1,465 6.31% 364 netscapeonline.co.uk 915 3.94% 265 netline.net.uk 519 2.23% 226 easynet.co.uk 1,016 4.37% 207 plus.net.uk 1,907 8.22% 198 bbc.co.uk 110 0.47% 199 currantbun.co.uk 195 0.84% 12

10 dircon.co.uk 217 0.93% 1211 onetel.net.uk 186 0.8% 1012 cableinet.co.uk 400 1.72% 913 pavilion.co.uk 398 1.71% 614 guardian.co.uk 132 0.56% 615 claranet.co.uk 185 0.79% 616 supanet.net.uk 234 1% 617 bt.co.uk 57 0.24% 518 jsb.co.uk 10 0.04% 519 bangor.ac.uk 118 0.5% 420 psi.net.uk 128 0.55% 4

Subtotal For Companies Above 18,282 78.81% 1,271Total For the Log File 23,229 100% 1,450

Germany

Most Active Organizations1. pol.co.uk

2. demon.co.uk

3. global.net.uk

4. netscapeonline.co.uk

5. netline.net.uk

6. easynet.co.uk

7. plus.net.uk

8. bbc.co.uk

9. currantbun.co.uk

10. dircon.co.uk

11. onetel.net.uk

12. cableinet.co.uk

13. pavilion.co.uk

14. guardian.co.uk

15. claranet.co.uk

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


2. demon.co.uk

3. global.net.uk


5. netline.net.uk

6. easynet.co.uk

7. plus.net.uk

8. bbc.co.uk

9. currantbun.co.uk

10. dircon.co.uk

11. onetel.net.uk

12. cableinet.co.uk

13. pavilion.co.uk

14. guardian.co.uk

15. claranet.co.uk

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


2. demon.co.uk

3. global.net.uk


5. netline.net.uk

6. easynet.co.uk

7. plus.net.uk

8. bbc.co.uk

9. currantbun.co.uk

10. dircon.co.uk

11. onetel.net.uk

12. cableinet.co.uk

13. pavilion.co.uk

14. guardian.co.uk

15. claranet.co.uk

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.

20

Most Active Organizations1. srv.t-online.de

2. dip0.t-ipconnect.de

3. ipdial.viaginterkom.de

4. win-ip.dfn.de

5. b2.uunet.de

6. f.uunet.de

7. ffm2-t4-2.atm-bb.de

8. s2.uunet.de

9. bs.ird.de

10. mch.tli .de

11. h2.uunet.de

12. frankfurt.nikoma.de

13. cf2-1-ffmpub.arcor-ip.de

14. rz.uni-konstanz.de

15. dialup.fu-berl in.de

VisitorSessions

Organizations

050

100150200250300

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 srv.t-online.de 2,262 10.6% 2662 dip0.t-ipconnect.de 1,704 7.98% 423 ipdial.viaginterkom.de 2,185 10.24% 374 win-ip.dfn.de 705 3.3% 355 b2.uunet.de 406 1.9% 136 f.uunet.de 439 2.05% 127 ffm2-t4-2.atm-bb.de 566 2.65% 108 s2.uunet.de 199 0.93% 99 bs.ird.de 518 2.42% 8

10 mch.tli.de 241 1.12% 611 h2.uunet.de 153 0.71% 612 frankfurt.nikoma.de 235 1.1% 513 cf2-1-ffmpub.arcor-ip.de 21 0.09% 414 rz.uni-konstanz.de 470 2.2% 415 dialup.fu-berlin.de 193 0.9% 416 bln2-t4-2.atm-bb.de 327 1.53% 417 ffm2-t3-1.atm-bb.de 571 2.67% 418 hh2.uunet.de 120 0.56% 419 ffm2-t2-1.atm-bb.de 211 0.98% 420 mail.eberspaecher.de 203 0.95% 3

Subtotal For Companies Above 11,729 54.99% 480Total For the Log File 21,362 100% 768

Netherlands

21

Most Active Organizations1. dial .wxs.nl

2. dial .xs4all.nl

3. telekabel.chel lo.nl

4. proxy04.wxs.nl

5. proxy02.wxs.nl

6. proxy03.wxs.nl

7. dial .c istron.nl

8. dtk.chel lo.nl

9. ns1-out.castel.nl

10. nc0-out.castel.nl

11. dial.freesurf.nl

12. vwr.wanadoo.nl

13. proxy1-in.worldonline.nl



VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

50

100

150

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 dial.wxs.nl 5,157 24.77% 1312 dial.xs4all.nl 974 4.67% 343 telekabel.chello.nl 384 1.84% 314 proxy04.wxs.nl 326 1.56% 165 proxy02.wxs.nl 525 2.52% 166 proxy03.wxs.nl 940 4.51% 167 dial.cistron.nl 813 3.9% 148 dtk.chello.nl 1,334 6.4% 139 ns1-out.castel.nl 96 0.46% 12

10 nc0-out.castel.nl 110 0.52% 1211 dial.freesurf.nl 420 2.01% 812 vwr.wanadoo.nl 477 2.29% 813 proxy1-in.worldonline.nl 65 0.31% 714 proxy3-in.worldonline.nl 68 0.32% 715 proxy2-in.worldonline.nl 71 0.34% 616 dial.kabelfoon.nl 400 1.92% 517 cache-1.hccnet.nl 49 0.23% 518 proxy3.kennisnet.nl 26 0.12% 419 tsvisuals.demon.nl 459 2.2% 420 mas.euronet.nl 46 0.22% 4


France

22

Most Active Organizations

1. abo.wanadoo.fr2. proxy21.infonie.fr3. tls.mms.fr4. curie.cybercable.fr5. cybercable.tm.fr6. proxyca2.grol ier.fr7. proxy6.infonie.fr8. proxy5.infonie.fr9. proxy1m.grolier.fr10. proxyca1.grolier.fr11. proxy2v.grolier.fr12.serveurs-nationaux.jussieu.fr13. ads l1.nordnet.fr14. wmar.c lub-internet.fr15. proxy1v.grolier.fr

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

50

100

150

200

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 abo.wanadoo.fr 8,236 33.48% 1812 proxy21.infonie.fr 1,240 5.04% 333 tls.mms.fr 1,427 5.8% 334 curie.cybercable.fr 760 3.09% 325 cybercable.tm.fr 403 1.63% 236 proxyca2.grolier.fr 302 1.22% 167 proxy6.infonie.fr 1,396 5.67% 138 proxy5.infonie.fr 914 3.71% 139 proxy1m.grolier.fr 183 0.74% 9

10 proxyca1.grolier.fr 96 0.39% 911 proxy2v.grolier.fr 132 0.53% 912 serveurs-nationaux.jussieu.fr 218 0.88% 713 adsl1.nordnet.fr 410 1.66% 714 wmar.club-internet.fr 61 0.24% 615 proxy1v.grolier.fr 231 0.93% 616 proxy2m.grolier.fr 157 0.63% 617 proxy.nordnet.fr 876 3.56% 518 wly.club-internet.fr 126 0.51% 519 polaris.worldonline.fr 51 0.2% 520 proxyca3.grolier.fr 191 0.77% 5


Sweden

23

Most Active Organizations1. ppp.algonet.se

2. cm.starport.se

3. edt.ericsson.se

4. seinf.abb.se

5. utfc2.utfors.se

6. utfc1.utfors.se

7. student.liu.se

8. gatekeeper.riksdagen.se

9. ns.sv t.se

10. ppp.netl ink.se

11. gw.allgon.se

12. inktomi1.algonet.se

13. ns.mark.se

14. asterix .goteborg.se

15. geo.uu.se

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

20

40

60

80

100

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 ppp.algonet.se 1,145 14.97% 892 cm.starport.se 170 2.22% 333 edt.ericsson.se 130 1.69% 174 seinf.abb.se 41 0.53% 85 utfc2.utfors.se 15 0.19% 76 utfc1.utfors.se 15 0.19% 67 student.liu.se 35 0.45% 58 gatekeeper.riksdagen.se 16 0.2% 59 ns.svt.se 173 2.26% 4

10 ppp.netlink.se 21 0.27% 411 gw.allgon.se 198 2.58% 412 inktomi1.algonet.se 134 1.75% 413 ns.mark.se 614 8.02% 414 asterix.goteborg.se 143 1.86% 315 geo.uu.se 15 0.19% 316 intel386.sev.se 49 0.64% 317 pokus.posten.se 246 3.21% 218 biosci.ki.se 22 0.28% 219 gateway.ltskane.se 23 0.3% 220 d212-151-176-52.swipnet.se 14 0.18% 2


North America

Canada

24

Most Active Organizations1. nbnet.nb.ca

2. wave.shaw.ca

3. poseidon2.destination.ca

4. qc.sympatico.ca

5. ns.sympatico.ca

6. nf.sympatico.ca

7. nybe.on.ca

8. sasknet.sk.ca

9. gov.on.ca

10. dr.cgocable.ca

11. bfree.on.ca

12. al .cgocable.ca

13. intergate.bc.ca

14. tdsb.on.ca

15. gate1.nova.ca

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

5

10

15

20

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 nbnet.nb.ca 866 6.84% 172 wave.shaw.ca 440 3.47% 173 poseidon2.destination.ca 393 3.1% 124 qc.sympatico.ca 292 2.3% 105 ns.sympatico.ca 245 1.93% 86 nf.sympatico.ca 188 1.48% 77 nybe.on.ca 33 0.26% 68 sasknet.sk.ca 207 1.63% 69 gov.on.ca 1,034 8.17% 5

10 dr.cgocable.ca 357 2.82% 511 bfree.on.ca 285 2.25% 512 al.cgocable.ca 132 1.04% 313 intergate.bc.ca 19 0.15% 314 tdsb.on.ca 35 0.27% 315 gate1.nova.ca 28 0.22% 316 ppp-ext.uqam.ca 65 0.51% 317 gouv.qc.ca 422 3.33% 318 btrd.ab.ca 15 0.11% 319 dial.uniserve.ca 34 0.26% 320 ucs.ualberta.ca 23 0.18% 2


Mexico.

25

Most Active Organizations1. prodigy.net.mx

2. megared.net.mx

3. avantel.net.mx

4. dial.net.mx

5. psi.net.mx

6. spin.com.mx

7. v ianetworks.com.mx

8. cem.itesm.mx

9. netservice.com.mx

10. tuxcom.net.mx

11. data.net.mx

12. mexred.net.mx

13. podernet.com.mx

14. infosel.net.mx

15. ccm.itesm.mx

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

50

100

150

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 prodigy.net.mx 8,047 63.56% 1482 megared.net.mx 716 5.65% 163 avantel.net.mx 1,156 9.13% 124 dial.net.mx 332 2.62% 75 psi.net.mx 200 1.57% 76 spin.com.mx 393 3.1% 67 vianetworks.com.mx 261 2.06% 68 cem.itesm.mx 604 4.77% 69 netservice.com.mx 20 0.15% 2

10 tuxcom.net.mx 128 1.01% 211 data.net.mx 85 0.67% 212 mexred.net.mx 66 0.52% 213 podernet.com.mx 16 0.12% 214 infosel.net.mx 29 0.22% 215 ccm.itesm.mx 18 0.14% 216 qro.itesm.mx 10 0.07% 117 cpesa.com.mx 11 0.08% 118 math.cinvestav.mx 46 0.36% 119 sci.net.mx 26 0.2% 120 unete.com.mx 11 0.08% 1


26

South America

Brazil

Most Active Organizations1. acessonet.com.br

2. zaz.com.br

3. uol.com.br

4. tdkom.com.br

5. terra.com.br

6. embratel.net.br

7. ig.com.br

8. infonet.com.br

9. matrix .com.br

10. persocom.com.br

11. svn.com.br

12. openlink.com.br

13. sul.com.br

14. impsat.com.br

15. telemar-ba.net.br

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

50

100

150

200

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 acessonet.com.br 7,663 27.74% 1542 zaz.com.br 2,226 8.05% 603 uol.com.br 1,536 5.56% 224 tdkom.com.br 1,640 5.93% 205 terra.com.br 285 1.03% 166 embratel.net.br 987 3.57% 167 ig.com.br 393 1.42% 138 infonet.com.br 368 1.33% 119 matrix.com.br 345 1.24% 11

10 persocom.com.br 178 0.64% 1011 svn.com.br 364 1.31% 1012 openlink.com.br 271 0.98% 913 sul.com.br 300 1.08% 814 impsat.com.br 272 0.98% 815 telemar-ba.net.br 1,163 4.21% 816 psinet.com.br 191 0.69% 817 internext.com.br 353 1.27% 718 domain.com.br 177 0.64% 719 conex.com.br 516 1.86% 620 procergs.com.br 77 0.27% 5

Subtotal For Companies Above 19,305 69.88% 409

27

Total For the Log File 27,731 100% 601

Argentina

Most Active Organizations1. gba.gov.ar

2. arnet.net.ar

3. sinectis.com.ar

4. infov ia.com.ar

5. escape.com.ar

6. prima.com.ar

7. ssd.net.ar

8. feedback.net.ar

9. datamarkets .com.ar

10. c iudad.com.ar

11. proxy2.uba.ar

12. cablenet.net.ar

13. comnet.com.ar

14. isol.net.ar

15. fibertel .com.ar

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

10

20

30

40

50

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 gba.gov.ar 870 15.84% 462 arnet.net.ar 1,742 31.73% 263 sinectis.com.ar 764 13.91% 194 infovia.com.ar 661 12.04% 145 escape.com.ar 192 3.49% 76 prima.com.ar 190 3.46% 77 ssd.net.ar 299 5.44% 78 feedback.net.ar 77 1.4% 69 datamarkets.com.ar 159 2.89% 2

10 ciudad.com.ar 138 2.51% 211 proxy2.uba.ar 22 0.4% 212 cablenet.net.ar 12 0.21% 113 comnet.com.ar 62 1.12% 114 isol.net.ar 11 0.2% 115 fibertel.com.ar 10 0.18% 116 merlo-sl.com.ar 197 3.58% 117 fullzero.com.ar 14 0.25% 118 microstar.com.ar 13 0.23% 119 drwebsa.com.ar 11 0.2% 120 xlnet.com.ar 27 0.49% 1


28

Oceania

Australia

Most Active Organizations1. connect.com.au

2. ozemail .com.au

3. tmns.net.au

4. iprimus.net.au

5. one.net.au

6. optusnet.com.au

7. senet.com.au

8. powerup.com.au

9. pac ific.net.au

10. iinet.net.au

11. free.net.au

12. netspace.net.au

13. net2000.com.au

14. ihug.com.au

15. unsw.edu.au

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

20

40

60

80

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 connect.com.au 2,194 11.02% 612 ozemail.com.au 1,409 7.08% 553 tmns.net.au 2,544 12.78% 454 iprimus.net.au 2,795 14.04% 415 one.net.au 1,598 8.03% 376 optusnet.com.au 1,079 5.42% 287 senet.com.au 157 0.78% 218 powerup.com.au 119 0.59% 179 pacific.net.au 143 0.71% 16

10 iinet.net.au 138 0.69% 1511 free.net.au 279 1.4% 1312 netspace.net.au 176 0.88% 1213 net2000.com.au 1,022 5.13% 1114 ihug.com.au 302 1.51% 1015 unsw.edu.au 335 1.68% 916 bigpond.net.au 390 1.95% 917 unimelb.edu.au 116 0.58% 618 netconnect.net.au 253 1.27% 619 adfa.edu.au 107 0.53% 520 onthenet.com.au 115 0.57% 5

Subtotal For Companies Above 15,271 76.73% 422

29

Total For the Log File 19,900 100% 550

Asia

Japan

Most Active Organizations1. so-net.ne.jp

2. odn.ad.jp

3. infoweb.ne.jp

4. ocn.ne.jp

5. goo.ne.jp

6. zaq.ne.jp

7. att.ne.jp

8. dion.ne.jp

9. mesh.ad.jp

10. highway.ne.jp

11. interq.or.jp

12. plala.or.jp

13. nttpc.ne.jp

14. teleway.ne.jp

15. tecnet.or.jp

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

5

10

15

20

1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13. 15. 17. 19.

2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 so-net.ne.jp 1,056 14.1% 162 Japan Academic Inter-University Network

odn.ad.jp861 11.5% 15

3 infoweb.ne.jp 375 5.01% 124 ocn.ne.jp 157 2.09% 105 goo.ne.jp 17 0.22% 96 zaq.ne.jp 585 7.81% 87 att.ne.jp 313 4.18% 78 dion.ne.jp 301 4.02% 69 C&C Internet Service Mesh

mesh.ad.jp157 2.09% 5

10 highway.ne.jp 48 0.64% 411 Unspecified

interq.or.jp173 2.31% 4

12 Unspecifiedplala.or.jp

156 2.08% 4

13 nttpc.ne.jp 60 0.8% 414 teleway.ne.jp 71 0.94% 415 Unspecified

tecnet.or.jp118 1.57% 3

30

16 Unspecifiedalles.or.jp

116 1.54% 3

17 echigo.ne.jp 486 6.49% 218 Japan Academic Inter-University Network

sphere.ad.jp233 3.11% 2

19 Unspecifiedintio.or.jp

101 1.34% 2

20 yatsuo.toyama.jp 188 2.51% 2Subtotal For Companies Above 5,572 74.44% 122Total For the Log File 7,485 100% 173

Taiwan

Most Active Organizations1. seed.net.tw

2. ethome.net.tw

3. is.net.tw

4. gcn.net.tw

5. ficnet.net.tw

6. fareastone.com.tw

7. hgc.com.tw

8. giga.net.tw

9. fju.edu.tw

10. bstec.net.tw

11. taipower.com.tw

12. freeway.gov.tw

13. jusco.com.tw

14. myson.com.tw

15. tonyi.com.tw

VisitorSessions

Organizations

0

50

100

150

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.11.12.13.14.15.16.


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 seed.net.tw 5,719 51.83% 1452 ethome.net.tw 178 1.61% 193 is.net.tw 1,429 12.95% 174 gcn.net.tw 173 1.56% 105 ficnet.net.tw 1,238 11.21% 96 fareastone.com.tw 1,684 15.26% 67 hgc.com.tw 371 3.36% 38 giga.net.tw 28 0.25% 29 fju.edu.tw 1 0% 1

10 bstec.net.tw 30 0.27% 111 taipower.com.tw 31 0.28% 112 freeway.gov.tw 13 0.11% 113 jusco.com.tw 64 0.58% 114 myson.com.tw 47 0.42% 115 tonyi.com.tw 8 0.07% 116 att.net.tw 20 0.18% 1

Subtotal For Companies Above 11,034 100% 219Total For the Log File 11,034 100% 219

31

Table Four supports the possibility of using Internet data to develop scenarios for Internet development. One scenario views Internet as developing because of social, economic, and cultural diversity. This perspective on Internet development indicates Internet develops because of market forces of various types. The digital divide theories of have and have not countries basically assumes Internet development to be produced by market forces.

The second secenario that can be hypothesized from Table Four is a command development perspective. Centralized authority in a country, possibly government, can direct the developmentof Internet. When Internet results from the policy objectives of a central authority, the results evidence a less amount of diversity. Looking at the various national graphs in Table Four indicates that this possibly happens in a substantial number of cases.

Clearly both the diversity and decentralized scenario and the command scenario for Internet development acquire some support from Table Four. When one attempts to imagine how the Information Technologies Revolution is likely to affect all the world, these two possible scenarios are valuable. The data found in Table Four possibly proves that both Internet development scenarios succeed.

Table Five looks at choice of search engines among Internet accessers. The decision about which search engine to use in locating subjects on Internet is obviously a highly subjective choice. People simply prefer one search engine to another for individualistic reasons or so one could assume. The greater diversity among search engines selected to search the web would, however, be an indicator of how extensively individual choice determines Internet access.

Table Five Top Search Engines for Casayego.Co By Countries March 26 – June 29, 2000

The graphic illustrates the first-time visitor sessions initiated by searches from each search engine. The first table identifies which search engines referred visitors to the site the most often. Note that each search may contain severalkeywords. The second table identifies the main keywords for each search engine.

table identifies which search engines referred visitors to the site the most often. Note that each search may contain several keywords. The second table identifies the main keywords for each search engine.

32


Top Search Engines

AltaVista Lycos Google Yahoo HotBot Excite Northern Light InfoSeek Look Smart

VisitorSessions

Top Items

71.6%

9.6%7.4%

4.8%2.2%

1.3%1.3%

0.9%0.9%

Top Search EnginesEngines Searches % of Total

1 AltaVista 177 66.54%2 Lycos 26 9.77%3 Google 18 6.76%4 Yahoo 13 4.88%5 HotBot 5 1.87%6 Excite 3 1.12%7 Northern Light 4 1.5%8 InfoSeek 2 0.75%9 Look Smart 4 1.5%

10 GoTo 4 1.5%11 Microsoft Network 3 1.12%12 Snap 1 0.37%13 All The Web 4 1.5%14 Dogpile 2 0.75%

Total of Searches for the Engines Above 266 100%Total of Searches for the Log File 266 100%

Germany

33

Top Search Engines

AltaVista Lycos Google Yahoo InfoSeek Northern Light HotBot Snap GoTo

VisitorSessions

Top Items

63.8%

24.4%

5.5%1.6%

1.6%0.8%0.8%0.8%0.8%


1 AltaVista 88 56.05%2 Lycos 52 33.12%3 Google 7 4.45%4 Yahoo 2 1.27%5 InfoSeek 3 1.91%6 Northern Light 1 0.63%7 HotBot 1 0.63%8 Snap 1 0.63%9 GoTo 1 0.63%

10 All The Web 1 0.63%Total of Searches for the Engines Above 157 100%Total of Searches for the Log File 157 100%

Netherlands

34

Top Search Engines

AltaVista

Lycos

Google

Northern Light

Snap

HotBot

Yahoo

GoTo

Microsoft Network

VisitorSessions

Top Items

72.8%

10.5%6.2%

3.1%1.9%

1.9%1.2%

1.2%1.2%


1 AltaVista 134 69.07%2 Lycos 23 11.85%3 Google 10 5.15%4 Northern Light 5 2.57%5 Snap 3 1.54%6 HotBot 5 2.57%7 Yahoo 3 1.54%8 GoTo 4 2.06%9 Microsoft Network 2 1.03%

10 Look Smart 1 0.51%11 Excite 1 0.51%12 Dogpile 3 1.54%


France

35

Top Search Engines

AltaVista

Lycos

Google

HotBot

Yahoo

Excite

VisitorSessions

Top Items

47.0%

45.5%

3.7%3.0%

0.7%0.0%


1 AltaVista 64 37.86%2 Lycos 94 55.62%3 Google 5 2.95%4 HotBot 4 2.36%5 Yahoo 1 0.59%6 Excite 1 0.59%


Sweden

Top Search Engines

AltaVista HotBot Google Northern Light All The Web Yahoo Lycos GoTo

VisitorSessions

Top Items

88.3%

2.5%2.5%

1.8%1.8%

1.2%1.2%0.6%


36

1 AltaVista 150 86.7%2 HotBot 4 2.31%3 Google 5 2.89%4 Northern Light 3 1.73%5 All The Web 3 1.73%6 Yahoo 2 1.15%7 Lycos 5 2.89%8 GoTo 1 0.57%


North America

Canada

Top Search Engines

AltaVista

Google

HotBot

Yahoo

Savvy Search

Northern Light

Excite

Microsoft Network

Lycos

VisitorSessions

Top Items

58.3%13.1%

4.8%4.8%

4.8%3.6%

3.6%3.6%

3.6%


1 AltaVista 51 50.49%2 Google 11 10.89%3 HotBot 7 6.93%4 Yahoo 6 5.94%5 Savvy Search 5 4.95%6 Northern Light 5 4.95%7 Excite 3 2.97%8 Microsoft Network 3 2.97%9 Lycos 4 3.96%

10 Look Smart 2 1.98%11 InfoSeek 1 0.99%12 GoTo 1 0.99%13 AOL NetFind 1 0.99%

37

14 dogpile 1 0.99%Total of Searches for the Engines Above 101 100%Total of Searches for the Log File 101 100%

Mexico

Top Search Engines

AltaVista

Yahoo

Snap

Google

All The Web

dogpile

HotBot

VisitorSessions

Top Items

75.0%

9.4%3.1%

3.1%3.1%

3.1%3.1%


1 AltaVista 28 77.77%2 Yahoo 3 8.33%3 Snap 1 2.77%4 Google 1 2.77%5 All The Web 1 2.77%6 dogpile 1 2.77%7 HotBot 1 2.77%


38

South America

Brazil

Top Search Engines

AltaVista

HotBot

Excite

Northern Light

Yahoo

Snap

VisitorSessions

Top Items

83.7%

4.7%4.7%

2.3%2.3%

2.3%


1 AltaVista 39 81.25%2 HotBot 2 4.16%3 Excite 3 6.25%4 Northern Light 1 2.08%5 Yahoo 1 2.08%6 Snap 2 4.16%


39

Oceania

Australia

Top Search Engines

AltaVista Google Yahoo dogpile Look Smart HotBot Excite Northern Light Lycos

VisitorSessions

Top Items

56.7%11.3%

9.3%6.2%

5.2%5.2%

4.1%1.0%

1.0%


1 AltaVista 58 53.7%2 Google 11 10.18%3 Yahoo 9 8.33%4 dogpile 6 5.55%5 Look Smart 5 4.62%6 HotBot 5 4.62%7 Excite 4 3.7%8 Northern Light 1 0.92%9 Lycos 1 0.92%

10 Snap 1 0.92%11 Microsoft Network 2 1.85%12 InfoSeek 5 4.62%


40

Asia

Japan

Top Search Engines

AltaVista

Yahoo

MicrosoftNetwork

Northern Light

VisitorSessions

Top Items

46.7%

40.0%

6.7%6.7%


1 AltaVista 7 41.17%2 Yahoo 8 47.05%3 Microsoft Network 1 5.88%4 Northern Light 1 5.88%

Total of Searches for the Engines Above 17 100%Total of Searches for the L

og File

17 100%

Taiwan

41

Top Search Engines

VisitorSessions

Top Items

100.0%


1 AltaVista 1 100%Total of Searches for the Engines Above 1 100%Total of Searches for the Log File 1 100%

Differences can be found among the countries in Table Five. Some countries have a distinct preference for Alta Vista, for example. Brazil and Sweden are excellent examples of countries where Alta Vista dominates Internet accessers choice of search engines. In contrast, consider Australia and Japan, countries where no one search engine has a dominate position.

The distinct difference that can be found these two groups of countries deserves some theorizing.The temptation here is to see this data as supporting the two scenarios for Internet development—market forces and command development. The differences that are found among these countries is pronounced and very likely represents genuine differences in how people in these different countries regard Internet.

Table Six looks at difference among nations in choice of browser. The browser decision is another excellent indicator of whether a country is diversity or uniformity oriented toward Internet. The basic choice in Internet browsers is obviously between MicroSoft Internet Explorerand Netscape. Internet Explorer has the edge on Netscape overall; however, the percentage of Internet accessers who favor Netscape differ among countries.

Compare Canada and Japan with Germany and Netherlands on choice of browser. Difference can be discerned around choice of browser. Interpreting data about choice of browser is, however, considerably more difficult. Exactly what affects browser choice is not as clearly evident. Probably one browser is used instead of another because of the computer literacy level of the Internet accesser. People higher in computer literacy tend to be more innovative in their

42

browser choices. Those Internet accessers who are not thoroughly familiar with computers usually stay with MicroSoft Internet Explorer, the browser closely associated with the computer and the computer’s operating system. Possibly we could use the percentage of decision for browsers other than Internet Explorer as some rough indication of the computer literacy of a country’s Internet accessers. Where we to do this we could hypothesize a curvilinear browser decision choice. Where command was low, literacy would likely also be low. Where command rule of development was high, literacy probably would also be high.

We would expect that the middle levels of command for Internet development would produce the most Netscape choices. Low command would correspond with low literacy resulting likely in an Internet Explorer choice. High command would result in high literacy but also high conformity, again an Internet Explorer choice appears reasonable. Netscape would reasonable flourish only where an intermediate level of command pressure for Internet development existed.Moderate levels of command would produce some literacy and no exact conformity. Netscape would likely gain more adherents than at the moderate level of command development.

Table Six Most Used Browsers for Casayego.Co

43

By Countries March 26-June 29, 2000

This section identifies the most popular WWW Browsers used by visitors to the site. This information will only be displayed if your server is logging the browser/platform information.


Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Other Netscape Co

MFC Tear Sample

contype

IBrowse/2.2 (Ami

Java1.2.2-3

WebCorp 3.0 beta

Other

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

81.3%

13.5%4.5%

0.0%0.1%0.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%

Most Used BrowsersBrowser Hits % of Total

HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 18,874 81.25% 1,3232 Netscape 3,133 13.48% 963 Other Netscape Compatible 1,037 4.46% 204 MFC_Tear_Sample 4 0.01% 45 Contype 21 0.09% 26 IBrowse/2.2 (AmigaOS 3.5) 155 0.66% 17 Java1.2.2-3 2 0% 18 WebCorp 3.0 beta 1 0% 19 art%20galleries 1 0% 1

10 Java1.2.2-1 1 0% 1Total For Browsers Above 23,229 100% 1,450

Germany

44

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

-

WebCopier

Other Netscape Co

WebSauger 1.20b

nelsonsMEDrazor/v

Rewebber/1.2 libw

Other

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

58.8%

37.0%

0.7%1.0%

1.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%1.4%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 12,546 58.84% 4192 Netscape 7,897 37.03% 3273 - 155 0.72% 64 WebCopier 209 0.98% 45 Other Netscape Compatible 203 0.95% 36 WebSauger 1.20b 5 0.02% 37 nelsonsMEDrazor/version001 4 0.01% 28 Rewebber/1.2 libwww-perl/5.41 1 0% 19 Mister PiX version.dll 42 0.19% 1

10 FlashGet 259 1.21% 011 Contype 1 0% 0

Total For Browsers Above 21,322 100% 766

Netherlands

45

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Microsoft URL Co

vb wininet

Other Netscape Co

-

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

81.6%

17.7%0.0%0.0%0.5%0.1%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 17,015 81.57% 4952 Netscape 3,697 17.72% 1083 Microsoft URL Control - 6.00.8169 8 0.03% 84 vb wininet 3 0.01% 35 Other Netscape Compatible 110 0.52% 16 - 24 0.11% 1


France

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Other Netscape Co

BIGBROTHER/1.

webcollage/1.43

EmailWolf 1.00

-

ExtractorPro

Other

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

71.5%

14.4%

13.6%0.4%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

Most Used BrowsersBrowser Hits % of Total Visitor

46

Hits Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 17,578 71.49% 4792 Netscape 3,550 14.43% 1023 Other Netscape Compatible 3,333 13.55% 224 BIGBROTHER/1.0 (Dos; 8-bit) 109 0.44% 45 webcollage/1.43 4 0.01% 26 EmailWolf 1.00 5 0.02% 17 - 6 0.02% 18 ExtractorPro 1 0% 19 DigOut4U 1 0% 1

10 Contype 1 0% 0Total For Browsers Above 24,588 100% 613

Sweden

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Other NetscapeCo

contype

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

76.8%

22.1%1.0%0.0%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 5,874 76.8% 4282 Netscape 1,694 22.14% 1333 Other Netscape Compatible 78 1.01% 124 Contype 2 0.02% 0


47

North America – Canada

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Other Netscape Co

MSProxy/2.0

webcollage/1.43

Lynx

-

contype

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

56.5%

39.2%

4.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.1%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 7,144 56.45% 2152 Netscape 4,956 39.16% 1083 Other Netscape Compatible 533 4.21% 104 MSProxy/2.0 4 0.03% 25 webcollage/1.43 4 0.03% 26 Lynx 1 0% 17 - 3 0.02% 18 contype 10 0.07% 0


Mexico

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

82.4%

17.6%

48


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 10,279 82.4% 1922 Netscape 2,195 17.59% 44


South America

Brazil

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Other Netscape Co

webcollage/1.42

Java 1.1

GetRight/4.1.2

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

84.8%

14.7%0.2%0.0%0.0%0.2%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 23,507 84.76% 5412 Netscape 4,077 14.7% 583 Other Netscape Compatible 67 0.24% 24 webcollage/1.42 2 0% 15 Java 1.1 12 0.04% 06 GetRight/4.1.2 66 0.23% 0


49

Argentina

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

76.7%

23.3%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 4,211 76.7% 982 Netscape 1,279 23.29% 51


Oceania Australia

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Other Netscape Co

-

webcollage/1.43

contype

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

67.7%

21.2%

9.9%1.2%0.0%0.0%

50


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 13,471 67.69% 4102 Netscape 4,221 21.21% 1343 Other Netscape Compatible 1,966 9.87% 34 - 236 1.18% 15 webcollage/1.43 2 0.01% 16 contype 3 0.01% 0


Asia Japan

Most Used Browsers

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Wget/1.5.3

Other Netscape Co

-

webcollage/1.43

webcollage/1.42

contype

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

89.5%

7.1%0.0%

3.2%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Microsoft Internet Explorer 6,686 89.54% 1302 Netscape 530 7.09% 253 Wget/1.5.3 3 0.04% 34 Other Netscape Compatible 237 3.17% 25 - 5 0.06% 16 webcollage/1.43 2 0.02% 17 webcollage/1.42 2 0.02% 18 contype 2 0.02% 0


Taiwan51

Most Used Browsers

Other Netscape Co

Microsoft Internet

Netscape

Teleport Pro/1.29

GetRight/4.2

Percentof Total

Hits

Top Items

14.6%

78.5%

2.0%4.3%

0.5%


HitsVisitor

Sessions1 Other Netscape Compatible 1,108 14.62% 882 Microsoft Internet Explorer 5,950 78.52% 623 Netscape 153 2.01% 74 Teleport Pro/1.29 326 4.3% 15 GetRight/4.2 40 0.52% 1


Browser choice is a nice indicator of nation difference, at least from the data presented in Table Six. The since there is considerable interest in 2000 in more diversity in Internet browser, this variable is likely to increase in significance in the future. One likely direction that browser diversification could take is toward browser adapted to special interests and usages. If browser development does occur in this direction, this variable could become a rich source of data for cross-national analysis.

These several variables suggest that possibly we need not be as pessimistic about Internet development as some have suggested is reasonable. Analyzing Internet organization, search engine choices, and browser choices produce reason to believe that Internet development may occur in two different scenarios. Market force with decentralization and diversity undeniably is apowerful impetus for Internet development. A second possible scenario appears, also, to be directing Internet development. Command forces with centralization and uniformity are discernible utilizing these three variables.

When one attempts to answer who is going to be on-line to conference in a decade, the data about who is currently on-line and the discussion of possible scenarios for Internet development must be considered. When this technique is used to attempt to answer whether presently underdeveloped Internet countries will come on line, the outcome is uncertain. No one can

52

predict reasonably whether Russia, China, the Middle East, and Africa will acquire a substantial Internet personality in the decade ahead.

While market forces are rather weak in these areas, command policy decision making is commonplace. The significance the political leaders of these areas perceive Internet to be to their own national interest will very likely determine how extensively Internet develops through these largeareas of the world. Command oriented development of Internet appears possible where market forces would never support such development.

This paper has discussed the arms race analogy to Internet development using Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Germany as examples of countries possibly affected by this development impetus. This perspective on Internet development may fail altogether and global Internet development may continue one approximately the same course as now occurring. Where this to occur, the division between the highly computer literate countries and those with less computer strength would increase substantially.

Conclusion

Internet conference technology has made substantial improvement in the last year or so. Where Internet conferencing was substantially experimental, now the softwares exist to make Internet conferencing possible with excellent results. The sophistication of Internet conferencing techniques now produce results that are thoroughly pleasing in even the most demanding situations. The potential in the present conferencing software allows presenters to be creative and innovative in their meeting techniques.

Excellent audio, Powerpoint presentation capability, application sharing, whiteboard, text chat, and video connectivity are all present in 2000 Internet conferencing softwares. This combinationof conferencing techniques is reinforcing and creates an authentic sense of presence among thosemeeting over the Internet. The qualitativeness of these conferencing techniques creates a meeting environment that is altogether conducive to numerous objectives.

Future developments in Internet conferencing are likely to be in the direction of even more user friendly situations. New softwares allows Internet accessers to direct their browsers to the same web page and then let personal computer based software take over and create a meeting room environment. As the simplicity of establishing a thoroughly pleasing meeting room becomes greater, the number of situations where an Internet conference could serve a constructive purposeis likely to increase substantially. Internet conferencing could eventually change the significanceof computers in our society.

In 2000, Internet extends to most of the globe. There are undeniably a large number of people out there who could be included in Internet conferencing. Some countries show a substantial amount of Internet development. Other countries have only a few accesses for a very large population.

53

Explaining these differences is possible with data but not all that exacting. Several contending theories contributing to Internet development can be discerned from data.A decentralization and diversity explanation that utilized market forces to build Internet appears the most popular explanation for why Internet develops in some countries and not others. An alternative explanation is command oriented and explains Internet could develop in countries lowin diversity and high in uniformity. National interest appears a major factor in command decisions favoring Internet. Arms race analogies to Internet develop have some explanatory strength. A few countries in 2000, appear to be developing their Internet capabilities in competition with other nations.

Present directions in Internet development could change. Command development of Internet throughout large areas of the world could possibly occur. Decisions for extensive Internet development are with the political leaders in many countries. If the present trends in Internet development which is substantially market dominated continue, some astounding differences between Internet developed and underdeveloped countries may be observed in a decade.

Bibliography

54

Aldrich, Howard E. and David Whetten. (1981) "Organization Sets, Action Sets and Networks Making the Most of Simplicity" in P.C. Nystrom and W. H. Starback, Vol. Handbook of Organizational Design, vol. 1, 385-408. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aslett, Don. (1984) "Clutters Last Stand." Writers Digest.

Benson, LK. (1978) "The Interorganizational Network as a Political Economy." in L. Karpik (ed.) Organization and Environment: Theory, Issues and Reality. Beverly FMs, Ca.: Sage.

Bertschneider, Stuart. (1990) "Management Information Systems in Public and Private An Empirical Test." Public Administration Review 50:536-545.

Bozeman, Barry and Stuart Bertschneider. (1986) "Public Information Systems: Theory Prescription." Public Administration Review 46:475-487.

Buchanan, Bruce. (1981) "The Senior Executive Service: How We Can Tell If It Works." Public Administration Review 41: 349-358.

Burns, Mark and Alfred Mauet. (1984) "Administrative Freedom for Interorganizational Action: Administration & Society 16:289-305.

Bryant, Alan. (1994) Creating Successfull Bulletin Board Systems. Addison-Wesley, 1994.

Carnoy, Martin, Manuel Castells, Stephen S. Cohen, and Fernano Henrique Cardoso (1993) University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Castells, Manuel. (1998) End of Millenium. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, Manuel. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Clason, George F. (1988) The Richest Man in Babylon. New York: NAL-Dutton, 1988.

Cook, K.S. (I 977) 'Exchange and Power in Networks of Interorganizational Relations." Social Quarterly 18:62-82.

Culnan, M. (1985) "The Dimensions of Accessibility of Online Information Systems and Services." Journal of American Society for Information Science 34:302-308.

55

Davis, Stan and Christopher Meyers (1998) Blur: The Speed of Change in the Connected Economy. New York: Warner Books.

De May, Marc (1992) The Cognitive Paradigm. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Donnellon, Anne, Barbara Gary, and Mchel G. Bougon (1986) "Communication, Meaning, and Administrative Science Quarterly 31:43-55.

Fraase, Michael (1994) The PC Internet Tour Guide. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Ventana Press.

Gage, Robert W. (1984) "Federal Regional Councils: Networking Organizations for Policy Management in the Intergovernmental System." Public Administration Review 44: 134-145.

Gortner, Harold F., Julianne Mahler, and Jeanne Bell Nicholson (1987) Organization Theory, A Public Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Gould, Carol C. (1989) The Information Web: Ethical and Social Implications of Computer Networking. Boulder: Westview Press.

Hahn, Harley and Stout, Rick. (1995) The Internet Yellow Pages. Berkeley, CA: Osborn/McGraw Hill.

Huber, George (1982) "Organizational Information Systems: Determinants of their Performance and Behavior." Management Science 28:138-155.

Kessler, Mark. (1987) "Interorganizational Environments, Attitudes, and the Policy Outputs of Public Agencies: A Comparative Case Study of Legal Services

Agencies.." Administration & Society 19:48-73.

Kiesler,Sara. (1986) "The Hidden Messages in Computer Networks." Harvard Business Review 64:46-58.

Klopf, Donald W. (1994) Interacting in Groups. Englewood, Co.: Morton Publishing Co.

Krol, Ed. (1994) The Whole Internet Uses Guide and Catalog. Sebastopol, CA, 1994.

Landreth, Bill. (1989) Out of the Inner Circle. Redmond: Teinpus Books.

Lauman, Edward 0. and Franz U. Pappi. (1976) Networks of Collective Action. New York: Academic Press.

56

Mayer, Richard E. (1983) Thinking, Problems Solving, Cognition. W.H. Freemen: New York.

Menzel, Donald C. (1987) "An Interorganizational Approach to Policy Implementation." Public Administration Quarterly 11:3-16.

O'Sullivan, Elizabeth. (1977) "Interorganizational Cooperation: How Effective for Grassroots Organizations?" Group & Organization Studies 2:347-358.

Rice, Ronald E. (I 982) "Communication Networking in Computer Conferencing Systems: A Longitudinal Study of Group Roles and System Structure." In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6. Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage 925-944.

Rice, Ronald E. (1987) "Computer-Mediated Communication and Organizational Innovation." Journal of Communication 37:65-94. Rogers, Everett M. and D. Lawrence Kincaid. (1981) Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research. New York: The Free Press.

Rubin, Barry M. (1986) "Information Systems for Public Management: Design and Implementation. " Public Administration Review 46:540-5 52.

Saraydarian, Torkom. (1989) The Psychology of Cooperation and Group Consciousness. Visions for the 21st Century: Cave Creek, AZ.

Shapiro, Carl and Hal R. Varian (1999) Information Rules, A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Simon, Herbert A. (1973) "Applying Information Technology to Organization Design." Public Administration Review 33:268-278.

Sproul, Lee S. (1986) "Using Electronic Mail for Data Collection in Organizational Research." Academy of Management Journal 29:159 -169.

Stevenson, William B. (1990) "Formal Structure and Networks of Interaction within Organizations." Social Science Research 19:113-13 1.

Volkman, Victor R. (1994) "Powerboard BBS, a Powerful Alternative." Connect Jan./Feb. 1994: 11-13.

57

Technology and International Collaboration at the ... · Technology and International Collaboration...

Documents

Transcript of Technology and International Collaboration at the ... · Technology and International Collaboration...