Near instant access to what has become the world's largest repository of information (and disinformation) makes it easier for kids to do their homework, business people to research products, markets and competitors, and even allows aged grandmothers to stay in touch with their cyber-generation kids.

But should being "connected" be considered as something so important that central or local government needs to step in and ensure that we're all online?

Readers Say Yesterday's Comments The group was very clear - Dylan Personally I don't care if - Eelko A useful piece of info is - Colin Have Your Say

Well the French did it decades ago when they introduced their 4 Minitel online data system, a terminal for which was provided with just about every telephone connection and effectively replaced the printed phone book.

By the way -- if you're visiting the Minitel website (above) then don't bother clicking on the "English" button at the bottom right of the main frame. I think it's probably just the French way of saying "we fooled you illiterate bastards!"

In Provo, Utah, the local council is deciding whether or not to provide a broadband fibre-based internet, TV, telephone connection to every home and business in the city -- at a cost of some US$55 million with operational costs of a round US$15 million a year thereafter.

It seems that some within the council believes the provision of connectivity these days is as much an "essential service" as the provision of water and street-lighting.

Meanwhile, in the UK, there have been a series of moves towards bridging the "digital divide" between the "connected" and "unconnected" within society.

In March 1998, 4  the BBC reported that one MP suggested every household be given a free PC and Net access.

At least the Utah experiment, if it goes ahead, will be an interesting exercise in seeing whether better communications and access to information is really capable of helping bridge the gap between rich and poor.

The Clayton Awards?
As regular readers will know, I'm not a great supporter of those awards where the selection is performed by a small and elite group of people with unknown agendas, biases and personal hygiene habits.

Things like the Qantas awards are, in my opinion, nothing more than a huge joke and a powerful branding exercise by the airline.

I've always wondered how it is that they manage to dish out their awards just evenly enough that both major TV broadcasters can claim to have the best news reports or service and the best documentaries. I thought "best" was a singular term and meant "better than"??

That other bastion of self-interest and covert agendas -- the "society" model is possibly even worse when it comes to awards. At least the underlying reason for the Qantas awards is obvious to all but the most brain-dead amongst us but, when a small, self-selected group decide to decide awards based on allegedly non-commercial criteria, I feel even less happy.

I refer of course to the NZ Computer Society's "Awards of the Century" that are to be handed out at the group's 40th annual conference in October.

I'm not going to say anything else -- except that I'm sure there are many Aardvark readers and members of ISOCNZ who might question exactly how and why Jim Higgins and Maurice Williamson (Lemon of the Year, 1998) gained nominations. And -- if they should win an award -- well, I for one shudder at the very thought of such a thing.

By the way -- if you're wondering whether these people are really qualified to judge the "best" of anything -- then take a look at the creative spelling used near the bottom left of 4 this page on the NZCS website. Very professional guys -- NOT!

I think the only real way to hand out awards is by running a fair and open voting system in which everyone can participate. Only then can those receiving the awards feel that they have truly been chosen on their merits.

As always, your feedback is welcomed.