{back from break--Issues At Hand logo, dissolve to Richard}

{screen images behind RICHARD: 40 multicultural face stills, eight across, five down.

This is Issues at Hand, CBC's news magazine, and I'm Richard Benning.

We now move from the national scale to the human scale.

Every week, our corps of telejournalists go out into communities across the country to find out how American are affected by the Issue at Hand.

This week, the issue is broader than most, for the Information Agenda reaches into the lives of all of us. Our day-to-day activities, our choices, our jobs, our communities, even our relationships have been changed--often dramatically--by the opportunities and restrictions of the Agenda.

Our questions to our respondents revolved around their perceptions of the Information Agenda--how it has affected their life, whether the change was for the good, what complaints they had, what compliments.

We go first to one of our business correspondents, Patty Farnham.

{caption:}

Over the last three years, business has changed in hundreds of ways. New markets have opened up, just-in-time production is the rule, warehousing has decreased, intercommunity communication has meant a nationalization of markets, and we've witnessed a boom in commerce whose impact has been primarily lateral rather than vertical.

I interviewed many individuals, and while many differed on how significant the Agenda has been upon their lives, everyone acknowledged its impact.

{caption:}

{she speaks at a very rapid pace. 48, in sales her whole life. Bleached blonde hair}

Inheritance futures is where they can get it. With the parents' consent, it becomes a very effective means for getting productive dollars. The parents like to be able to help their kids tax-free at no risk to them, and the kids get their inheritance earlier, when they can use it more effectively.

And the Educonomy lets them come to me. I give them some information, and educate them on what's available as far as options go. Other businesses use free initial consultations, or some such thing; I use the Education Web.

Since so many of my clients give me favorable education responses, I get a relatively continuous flow of potential business, as well as potential future business.

Lots of the boomers just want to know how it works. I tell them, because it's a very upfront sort of business. We can't afford to be otherwise. It's just a futures market.

There are risks, but that's factored in, just like insurance, and any other futures market. Lots of my students come back to me as clients, though I end up not hearing from most of them.

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

{this woman has good stage presence. She doesn't say much, but she says it with flair}

The educonomy isn't just for education. It's a consultant's dream. I mean, everybody's a consultant these days, when you get down to it. Sure, a lot of your time is spent just teaching people, and you can spot those folk a mile away, and you do them and are done with them. I mean, you teach them something about what you know, and--to be quite frank--to be sure of getting a good educational report. But others, they can be worked into business.

I'm in design. I work on personal image. I get a lot of women, mostly retirees, who just happen to scan for

"Designer, personal." After they set up a edusession, I tell them a few things, give them their colors, explain about unified appearance, about focus points, a few more secrets of the trade, and that takes about an hour. Then I let them know that they're welcome to continue, but that I've got clients coming soon, and that they'll need to set up an appointment if they want more. I get a pretty good return.

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

{this guy is such a slime bucket it's almost embarassing, but he speaks for a number of people}

It's absolutely inexcusable to be handing out computers to people who can't afford them themselves. Let 'em earn 'em, like I did. I worked hard, and never got a handout like this. Hell, most can't even read. They'd rather be stealing for their next fix than learning a respectable trade.

I was one of the fortunate ones who got wind of the situation before most of my peers did. Sly like the fox. I foresaw the devastation that would occur with this so-called "true cost taxation." Damage tax indeed. I'll tell you what it damaged--normal life, for one.

Once I heard about it, I realized that my paper manufacturing plant would be extremely hard hit, what with the taxes that were bound to come up on using old-growth trees for our pulp. I could see it now, those tree-huggers would slap heavy taxes on the industry. And those by-product pollutants from bleaching and such add even more I just don't understand it ... what are people going to use instead of paper now? The paperless office hasn't yet become a reality; I doubt if it ever will. Not everyone knows how to use a computer. Most people probably won't even learn.

{sits back, sighs}

Fortunately, I was able to sell my plant for more than I expected, to an ignorant fool without vision or business sense. He wasn't any the wiser until a couple of months after the deal went through. Then I wasn't legally responsible for anything. Possession is nine tenths and all that.

{laughs}

What a stink he put up! I was just glad I had my lawyers to run interference. And now he's stuck with it, having to pay those damned "damage taxes." All I can say is, better him than me. After all, I've got payments to make on my Beemer.

{laughs again}

Anyway, with the capital from my company's sale, I was able to invest heavily in traditional tax shelters before the big change. I bought stock in some bleeding-heart, tree-hugging company that wants to recycle the sweat off a cow's ass. I say, let 'em; and as long as they do, I win.

You know what I'm doing? I'm using the dividends from that company to buy disposable diapers stock. That stock plummeted, and still hasn't recovered, but look at the sales! They haven't gone down a bit. And the dividends they pay are top-notch. Do I care that they'll end up in some landfill in Nebraska? I've never even been to Nebraska.

Besides, the ancient civilizations built on top of their garbage. What can't we? I think all those bleeders have gone way overboard with all this global warming, polar-cap melting, rain-forest disappearing crap.

Luckily, I'm making enough of a return to support me and my family for a while. Of course, I won't be as comfortable as I would have been before that radical got into office.

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

{small, soft-spoken man. In twenty years he may be another Giapetto, if he grows a moustache}

Sure, I use one at work. And, sure, I use the Window for a few things like mail, and shopping, and taxes. I'm listed, sure, and I've taught a few people, I guess, in exchange for educredits. It was fun, but for the most part the revolution just passed me by.

Do I think it's good for the country? As much as anything those bigwigs do can be good. I don't trust any of 'em, and when they act like they're one of us, then I trust 'em even less. I didn't trust Williams at first for that same reason. Wearing sneakers, for crying out loud, and him rich enough to run for President. But I guess it worked out.

I guess my take on it is that if any policy is good for small business, then it's good for the country. And that's what it seems like the Agenda is good for--building small business. I've got lots of friends who have a small business on the side. And they like it. So I guess on that count it's working out okay.

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

{a real "hunk" just past his prime. Telegenic. Great smile}

But then they started getting their act together. The online tax line was really smart software engineering.

Register systems could be easily retrofitted to calculate the damage tax, and could print it out on the tape. The free assistance with object-relation connections meant that we could make our inventory and retail system could do a great deal of the work itself.

The that great labeling system came out--those LCD panels that attached to the racks and shelves. For all intents and purposes we broadcast our prices to those little cards sitting in front of the product. It cost some money, but the customers liked it a lot, and it meant that we could update the tax-adjusted price easily.

I've got some friends who whose businesses weren't big enough to need that. They just keep a Window on the tax line, and tell their customers what the "nasty tax" damage is. I like the cards better.

Now those cards can even trigger advertisements on the monitors above the aisle. Which has meant marginally larger sales, but overall a much higher revenue base, because the companies supplying the as pay us for the privelege.

Sure it's complicated. But so far it's been working out pretty well.

{dissolve to:}

It's not just individuals and small businesses that have been affected, of course. Entire subsections of commerce were forced to revamp their approach to their customers.

In 1992, telecommunications companies--especially long distance services--were a booming business. While still actively involved in the Information Age, their role has now shifted, and is still shifting, as the Highway uses more satellite linkups. Phone lines are still used for voice communication, though use is declining because many Window users have purchased add-on units that allow voice transmission on the Highway. Local phone systems are also still intimately concerned with individual access to the information nodes in the post offices.

What happens to the telephone systems in the next five years is still a big question mark to some people, like Claudia Rios at US Sprint:

{dissolve to:}

{Rios is a small, hispanic woman whose straightforwardness is refreshing. We have some footage from a bigger cheese, but the content isn't nearly as good.}

Keeping our proportion of the backbone Window system means that for the next three years we'll have a base from which to work--at least that's our expectation. The baby bells get small percentage, the other telecommunications companies get theirs, we get ours.

We carry the data calls between the central nodes, and the baby bells carry the calls to and from the community Windows. ATT, MCI, and Sprint divide the datacall chores according to the agreement negotiated at the beginning of every three-year span. That's why I said "that's our expectation," because we're still in negotiations. US

Sprint is in pretty good shape, because we've kept at the forefront of technology all along, and so I expect the negotiations will work out for us, but there's always a little fear....

It keeps us hopping. Talk to me in July, when the negotiations conclude, and I'll tell you how things worked out.

{dissolve to:}

{Peetz was pretty politic about this. He was holding some things back, but it works all right in this context}

Overall, it was, and still is, a win-win situation.

Not often does this sort of thing work out so well.

Now, I'm not trying to be a polyanna about it, because without question there are problems with every region, with every communication company, and every agreement must be negotiated every three years. Right now we're in the middle of some very delicate negotiations with the major carriers.

However, because there are local pressures that are brought to bear by the customers, as well as other options like satellites available, the costs of the service tend to stay equivalently reasonable nationwide. The taxpayers are funding this, and so we have a responsibility to get them the best deal for their dollars.

{dissolve to:}

It still infuriates me. There were plenty of ways that the online systems could have stayed exclusively in the private sector. You'd think we'd have learned about the dangers of nationalized commerce, about the futility of centralized operations.

When I first heard of Williams' plan I dubbed it "computer in every pot politics." Even if that part of it is a success, even a qualified success, I still think that the control of the Windows system by the government is wrong.

The private sector invented the online system, and now the government has stolen the general-purpose system away from it. Is that fair?

Patty Farnham:

But Prodigy still exists, and private online systems are everywhere. What is it that you object to?

Dale Woors:

Sure, private online systems are there. But people don't need to use them. They have the public ones available, for free.

Patty Farnham:

Has your subscriber base declined?

Dale Woors:

Well, no, but our projections in 1991 indicated that we would have grown at a much faster rate than we have. What we've also had to do is beef up our graphics capabilities in a major way. The fed made the Window easy enough to use that we don't have the same edge we used to have, back when everyone else was character-based and we were easy and pretty.

Patty Farnham:

So you object to the principle of the thing more than the actual practice?

Dale Woors:

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, the government began developing a dirt-cheap car rental business? Providing stripped-down models for a song and a dance? Avis and Budget and Hertz would only be left the luxury rentals. They might stay in business, and they might even make as much actual profit. But their dependable bread and butter would be put at risk, if not taken away. Would that be fair? Would that be equitable?

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

{one of my favorite information entrepreneurs. Engaging, not overly glib, and sincere}

We've had the Online since '91. Among the oldest infojournals available. We've got a subscription base in the millions. Mostly because we give anyone three months free, just by signing up. We've done that since the beginning: No obligation. Try me out. If you don't like the stuff I read, find interesting, and include in the journal, then frankly I don't want you as a customer. If you like my taste, after three months you pay seventy cents per connection. There are end-ads, of course, but only when there's room at the end of a page. Another long-standing rule that's served me well.

People have learned my taste, and lots of people like it. My authors like it, because they get reimbursed very well, as a percentage of their data's online time. If someone spends ten percent of a billable period, reading John Smith's article, then John gets ten percent of the half of the charge allocated to royalties. Or, roughly, three and a half cents. But multiply three point five times a million--well, that's quite a lot, now, isn't it?

Without the Windows system, and the Information Agenda, and the computer in every home, my online magazine quite simply wouldn't work. There weren't enough computer owners interested in online systems back in '91 to really make it work. There was a surge in that year, to be sure, which is why I started the service up. And I got by enough to stay in business.

But now it's a lot more than that. I've got several other enterprises going, and I still love my job, as do my employees. We all like the Agenda, no question about it.

{dissolve to:}

{caption:}

Business is business, as the saying goes, and business is part of everything. But nothing has changed business more in one stroke than did the Information Agenda. Business has adapted, Wall Street has long since calmed down, but we may never again be able to use the phrase "business as usual."

This is Patty Farnham, CBC News. Richard?

{cut to:}

There's no question that the Window has become part of everyone's life, but how does it work? What lets us explore data in Washington while we brew tea in Missouri?

And who is keeps track of it all? Are people abusing the system? Who is watching out for the little guy? We look into these questions, and we go into the yard of a pair of watchdogs, after this.

{ad break, 120 seconds}

Go to next section of The Information Agenda
Go back to The Information Agenda home page
Back to Michael Jensen's home page