“Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?”

By Dr. L.B. Mussio

Presented by Group R:Miranda, Lisa &

Jillian

Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?•Late 1960s: policy makers must decide how to deal with the collaboration of communications and computers. How and by whom should the innovation be shaped?•Policy makers believed that technology had the power to “reorient political and economic relationships” and also felt the state should distribute technological benefits.

An Emerging Convergence• As technology developed, questions of control and

ownership emerged.• Well-informed, proper debate needed to resolve

questions of control (Fano).• How was Canada to avoid the “perils of American

technological encroachments” (Reisman)?

Crisis and Opportunity• Thoughts of Canada developing a national computer utility and the need for developing public policy • Fear of American counterparts would take over the market – need for increased expenditure

• Department of Communications (DOC) predicted the computer service industry third biggest industries

• Canadian Computer/Communications Agency • Industry would surpass previous GNP

Crisis and Opportunity• 80% of the domestic data processing

market was supplied by foreign owned companies

• Merger of computers and telecommunications

• Federal government underwrote 40 per cent of Control Data Canada’s (CDC) expansive program

• Canadian Computer Communications Task Force (develop new technology policy)

• Bell Canada and IBM Canada were in basic agreement – even though other reactions were split

Provincial Responses to Convergence

• Provincial interest mimicked federal attention

• Provinces varied in opinion

• Parallels with Ontario Hydro discussed

• If a computer utility was established, where would the money come from?

• Quebec viewed computer communications as being administered at the provincial level

Provincial Responses to Convergence

• Saskatchewan wanted to keep abreast of technological trends in computers and communications

• Saskatchewan Computer Utility Corporation

• Several provinces established their own initiatives in the field

• Further stalling Federal plans

Confusion and Forfeit• By the mid-1970s, there were

two major problems that policy makers had to deal with:

1. The government’s desire to consider differing corporate interests.

2. The lack of consolidation among the state on computer communications policy.

* As a result, attempts to form a concrete and comprehensive policy ceased by 1975.

• In turn, this stagnated discussion in regards to computer communications policy and progress was stalled.

Confusion and Forfeit• It was feared that computer communications

would not evolve in the utility direction, as originally desired.

• Utility Direction = Services such as system design, programming consulting, data processing & facility management on a national level.

• Competitive Environment vs. Canadian Control.

• Competition was maintained at significant cost only if large institutions employed their vast resources.

• The suggested situation favoured Canadian control – but also required backing from prosperous Canadian corporations.

Confusion and Forfeit• It was proposed that the computer utility would provide

various services on a nationwide basis.• Many believed that the term “utility” described the

government’s secret desire to change computer operations from an unregulated field into a franchised monopoly.

• As a result, there was a demand for increased public participation in the creation of computer policy.

• Despite assertions that the technology could be used as “a tool of development”, the general principles of the policy had been set and the government made the decision to stay out of direct regulation of the industry by 1974.

Conclusion• By 1975, ambitions for public control had failed.• Large corporate interests soon took precedence over

those in the domestic computer service industry, with the lack of policy serving to reaffirm the position of established enterprises over smaller entities.

• This effectually weakened Canada’s future in the industry.

Conclusion• The failure of the government to successfully develop

communications policy had numerous consequences:1. Canadian priorities were subordinated.2. Attempts to frame the computer communications situation

within a historical utilities model were ineffective.3. The concept of computer communications in terms of

common property was dashed in favour of market distribution.

* Following this, the technology was quickly disseminated among the country’s wealthy areas, although it was without utility principles.

Discussion

• Why is the link between communications andcomputers so significant? What further potential does this relationship hold?

• The government was ambivalent about its position on computer communications for a number of reasons. What are the implications of such technological ambivalence?