Vancouver, 21 February 1995
The Future of Communications
Keynote Address to INTERCOMM 95
Dr. Pekka Tarjanne
Secretary-General, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Mr. Chairmen,
Distinguished fellow speakers,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is an honour for me to have been asked  to give the keynote address 
to INTERCOMM 95 and to speak to such a distinguished gathering on a 
subject which seems to be on everyone’s mind these days -- the future 
of communications and what it means for mankind.
The last time I spoke to INTERCOMM was in 1990.  It is encouraging to 
come back five years later and see that the event continues to grow 
and to attract high calibre participants. The organizers deserve our 
congratulations for making INTERCOMM a premier event on the 
international conference scene, although they are certainly helped by 
the fact that INTERCOMM is held in Vancouver, a city renowned for its 
natural beauty and the warmth of its people.
I have been involved in communications for more than twenty years, and 
I must say that it is a very long time since I have seen so much 
interest in communications, everywhere in the world.  We probably have 
to go back to the 1960s when satellites were first launched and 
Marshall McLuhan said that we were living in a "global village" to see 
so much interest in communications.  Why is this so?
One explanation is obvious.  All forms of communications are changing 
very rapidly, thanks to the information technology revolution.  
Broadcasters, journalists, entertainers and artists are all beginning 
to realize that they are part of an emerging complex of "information 
industries".  They now belong to the same extended family as computer 
scientists, software developers and telecommunications engineers.  The 
media are clearly fascinated by what is happening around them and want 
to tell the world about it.  But there is more to the story than media 
self-absorption.
If there is one individual who has almost single-handedly raised the 
profile of communications in the public mind, it is surely the Vice-
President of the United States, Mr. Al Gore.  His image of "electronic 
highways" that will lead mankind to a better world in the twenty-first 
century has struck a responsive chord, not only with the media but 
with heads of state, industry leaders, and at least some members of 
the general public.  Perhaps Mr. Gore will one day be remembered as 
the McLuhan of the ‘90s!
Today, his vision is widely shared.  The European Union and Japan have 
developed ambitious plans to keep pace with those announced by the 
American administration.  In fact, dozens of national initiatives have 
been announced around the world, including here in Canada where a 
"National Electronic Highways Program" is underway.  But again, there 
is more to the story.
Vice-President Gore was not content to raise the profile of 
communications at the national level alone.  At the ITU World 
Telecommunication Development Conference in Buenos Aires in March, 
1994, he proposed that the nations of the world should cooperate in 
building what he called a "Global Information Infrastructure", or GII, 
founded on the same principles as the American "National Information 
Infrastructure", or NII.
Once again, the Vice-President’s concept captured the imagination of 
the world and triggered a response in other capitals.  Today in 
Vancouver, in parallel with this conference, the OECD and the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum have organized a special 
seminar on the GII.  As you probably know, there will also be a 
special meeting of the G.7 group of advanced industrial nations in 
Brussels this coming weekend, again to discuss the GII.  The GII 
Commission, a private sector initiative supported by many of the 
biggest communications companies in the world, will hold its inaugural 
meeting in Brussels on the eve of the G7 meeting.  The GII was also 
the subject of intense discussion at this year’s World Economic Forum 
in Davos earlier this month.
Is the GII the future of communications?  This is the question that 
seems to be uppermost in everyone’s mind. Today, I would like to give 
you my views on this question.  In my mind the answer is yes -- and 
no.
First of all, what is the GII?  How does it differ from traditional 
forms of communications?
There are many different answers to this question.  It is no 
exaggeration to say that every country has a slightly different view 
of what the GII is, what it will do, and how it should be built.  
Europe has put the emphasis on economic and social issues, such as 
employment, in "the global information society".  Japan, on the other 
hand, has stressed the theme of "reforms toward the intellectually 
creative society of the twenty-first century".  Here in Canada, the 
concept of "information highways" has been retained.  Singapore sees 
itself as an "intelligent island".  Every country, in fact almost 
every speaker, has a different point of view.
Should we therefore conclude that the GII is nothing more than a 
catchy slogan? Personally, I would hesitate to draw such a negative 
conclusion.  It seems to me that  whether we talk about information 
highways, the NII, the EII, the GII, or -- my own favourite -- the 
"III" or international information infrastructure, we are talking 
about a common set of goals, about a common set of ideals, about a 
common set of problems.  Whether we know it or not, we are, in fact, 
talking about the future of communications, a future that will be very 
different from the past, a future that almost certainly awaits us in 
the twenty-first century.
How will the communication networks of the future differ from those of 
the past?  To begin with, I think there is widespread agreement on the 
technical aspects of this question.  If you will allow me, I will try 
to capture this consensus in a few sentences. The networks of the 
future will be digital.  They will be intelligent.  They will be 
defined and controlled by software.  They will offer high transmission 
capacity and flexible bandwidth.  They will have open architectures so 
that they can be easily accessed and interconnected.
Second, there is also consensus on how the communication services 
provided by these networks will differ from traditional services.  
They will convey information from every possible source - by putting 
us in touch with other human beings, by tapping the world’s rapidly 
expanding reservoirs of electronically stored information, by sensing 
what is happening in natural and man-made environments.  This 
information will be presented to us in all its richness; the networks 
of the future will connect with our senses of sight, sound and touch, 
and perhaps with our other senses as well. The services provided by 
the networks of the future will be personal, tailored to the needs of 
individual users.  They will allow us to interact with other 
information sources -- whether they are people, databanks or 
environmental sensors -- in ways not previously possible.  And they 
will be mobile, available any time and in any place.
Third, there is also a widely shared vision of how these networks and 
services will be applied. In addition to providing an almost 
unimaginable range of business and entertainment services in response 
to market demands, it is widely assumed that education, health care 
and other public services will be provided by communication networks.  
If all of these visions materialize, it is certainly the case that 
every aspect of life will be transformed. 
This, in a few words, summarizes the consensus that I see emerging 
around the world on the communication networks and services of the 
future.  It is an inspiring vision.  The question is how we can 
realize it.
When I attended the Information Technology Governor’s meeting at the 
annual World Economic Forum in Davos a few weeks ago, I was asked if 
the world was "on track" towards the GII.  My answer surprised the 
audience.  It was "no".  Let me explain why.
I come from Finland and, like many Finns, enjoy the outdoors.  In 
fact, when an interviewer from a Geneva newspaper asked me recently 
where my favourite place in the world is -- probably expecting me to 
say Geneva`-- I truthfully replied that my favourite places are the 
lakes and forests of Finland.  
In Finland, we have at least two very popular sports that people enjoy 
in the wild.  One is hiking.  The other is called orienteering.  The 
difference between them is that when you hike, you follow a track 
towards your destination.  When you go orienteering, you have a goal 
but there is no track.  It is up to you to find the best way, using a 
compass and map.  If you try this sport you will quickly learn that 
the shortest route on paper is not always the quickest way through the 
forest.
For me, finding the best route to the goals we have set for the 
communication networks of the future is more like orienteering than 
hiking.  We know where we want to go.  But we do not know yet how to 
get there.
It is sometimes thought that there is a magic solution to building the 
GII - for example that the answer is the Internet, or that it is 
Broadband ISDN, or that it is interactive cable television, or that it 
is future generation wireless technologies.  Personally, I do not 
believe that there is a magic solution of this kind -- that some 
"revolutionary technology" or "killer application" will conquer the 
world.  It is much more likely that the GII will be a "network of 
networks" and that it will evolve out of existing technologies and 
services, just as communications has always done.
It is also sometimes suggested that the mergers and alliances now 
taking place in the communications industry will lead to a situation 
in which a handful of giant, vertically integrated companies dominate 
the world.  I do not see this as likely to happen either.  It may be 
true that a small number of super-carriers will dominate international 
business


services.  In this area, there are real benefits for customers from 
end-to-end service delivery.  However,  in general it seems to me that 
increasing competition,  increasing diversity,  increasing innovation, 
and increasing creativity will typify the networks of the future.
Beyond predicting what will happen, I will even go so far as to say 
what should happen.  When it comes to content services, whether one-
way or two-way, the last thing any of us should want is to see power 
concentrated in a few hands -- whether they are the hands of 
government or the hands of the private sector.  We should use 
communications and information technology to bolster the values that 
underlie democratic societies.  In the global information society of 
the twenty-first century, there should be no room anywhere for "Big 
Brother" or any of his relatives.
In this respect, I see the interactivity promised by the communication 
networks of the future as one of their most important attributes.  A 
truly democratic society depends on informed and active citizens.  I 
believe there is a clear connection between what happens in private 
realms, such as the home and office, and what happens in public fora 
where political choices are made.  If we are passive "couch potatoes"  
in our leisure time, will we be active members of society?  I believe 
that all of us involved in communications need to reflect seriously on 
this fundamental question.
There is another moral and political comment I would like to make 
about the concept of the Global Information Infrastructure.  As I have 
said today, I think there is an emerging consensus on what the words 
"information infrastructure" mean, as well as on the kinds of services 
that will be provided by the networks of the future.  However, it 
seems to me that we have a much less clear idea of what the word 
"global" means.  Will the GII be global in the sense of carrying all 
kinds of information?  Or will it be global in the sense of being 
accessible from at least some locations in most or all countries?  Or 
will it be global in the sense of providing universal service to 
people everywhere, from the remotest villages to the most crowded 
urban cores? 
There appears to be a tendency to assume that the GII will be global 
in all these senses, and that it will provide access to the world’s 
information resources to the poorest countries and people in the world 
as well as to the richest.  This is a laudable vision.  But is it 
realistic under present conditions?
In 1984 the report of the ITU’s Maitland Commission revealed an 
enormous gap between developed and developing countries in terms of 
access to basic telephone service.  Our 1994 World Telecommunications 
Development Report showed that this gap had barely narrowed, in spite 
of the great progress made in some parts of the world.  In our 1995 
report, which will be published in the fall to coincide with TELECOM 
95, we are going to look at the worldwide development of information 
infrastructures.  Not surprisingly, in this area the gap between the 
information rich and the information poor is several orders of 
magnitude wider than in the area of basic service.
The development of a truly global information infrastructure will be 
an enormous challenge for mankind.  Of course, it is a major technical 
challenge; but it is much more than that.  Seen from the perspective 
of today’s realties, the development of the communication networks of 
the future cannot -- and should not -- be separated from overall human 
development.  For me, the development of the GII is part of the world-
wide development of mankind’s diverse economic, social, cultural and 
political structures and capabilities.  To succeed, this development 
must take place in harmony with the possibilities and limits present 
in the natural and human environment.


If I may return to my orienteering metaphor, I think that all of us 
have a goal -- to participate in developing communication systems for 
the future.  We have a map -- the different network and service paths 
that can be taken to reach this goal.  We face many unknowns along 
whichever route we take -- the unpredictable elements of technology, 
markets and human behaviour.  Let me suggest that we also have a 
compass -- a moral compass -- that should point us toward paths that 
maximize values such as universal access, the right to communicate and 
diversity of expression.  These values are fundamental not only to 
communications, but to the  democratic evolution of mankind.  There 
will never be a truly global information infrastructure unless people 
everywhere can have access to it, can draw on its resources, and can 
use it to express themselves.  To me, these values are the future of 
communications.



1