Rewrite of blog post from week 1

Rewrite

United States Lags Behind In Mobile Banking, Mobile Banking Done Right In Afghanistan

While western countries are leading the world in the development of technology, developing markets like those in Africa and Asia seem to be the ones taking advances of the opportunities created by these technological advances, mainly mobile banking.

China is leading the world in the adoption of mobile banking, with 77% of consumers using their phones to conduct financial transactions according to a global survey conducted by KPMG. This study found that the convenience of mobile banking supersedes consumer concerns over privacy and security and is growing exponential in the Chinese markets. These are some of the results of KPMG's fourth annual Global Consumers and Convergence survey.  Compared with only 18 months ago, the global percentage of respondents who have used their mobile device for banking has more than doubled from 19% to 46%, while the percentage that have used it to buy goods and services has almost tripled from 10% to 28%. In countries with rapidly growing economies a new and growing middle class is experiencing an increase in purchasing power and access to Internet markets and banking via their mobile devices is leading to a growth in commerce and commercial uses of mobiles.

This exponential growth is occurring in the world's fastest-developing economies such as China and India. In China, 77% of respondents say they have used their mobiles for banking and 44% for retail transactions, while in India 38% are using them to shop, and 43% for financial business.

Asia-Pacific consumers are much more likely to be heavy users of mobile online services than those in Western Europe and the US, says KPMG.  Only 19% of US consumers have conducted banking transactions on a mobile device. This is more than double the numbers counted 18 months ago but still ranks relatively low when compared with other nations.

So why is the United States lagging behind in the M-banking revolution?

Of the people who had reported that they had not used mobile services, 52 percent cited security and privacy as the primary reason. Publicized cases of identity theft and hacking scandals like the crash of the PlayStation network this year during which hackers gained access to thousands of credit card accounts, have made many reluctant to conduct any kind of online and mobile banking. Lower technological literacy in older generations has also caused many to shy away from mobile banking, opting instead for the traditional paper and face to face banking styles.

Lack of availability may also be a contributor to the low percentages. Nearly, three-quarters of US respondents said that their current bank either does not offer banking through a mobile device or that they did not know if their bank offered this service. American banks have been slow to adapt to the mobile banking revolution. Where as banks in some Asian and European countries are working towards developing an app for mobiles that would allow them to be used to purchase goods in a store by scanning the phone, American banks have just began to introduce mobile banking apps and run info-commercials about m-banking.

In under developed countries such as South East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa mobile banking is the first established system of banking. Versions of mobile banking have existed in countries like Afghanistan for almost a decade. In these countries mobile banking does not have to compete with the established system of banking many Americans are reluctant to leave. Many in developing countries do not have the luxury of going to the ATM or wiring money at the bank making mobile banking the only viable option.

The United States could learn a lot about how mobile banking should be done from its pseudo-protectorate Afghanistan. Even in the poverty stricken country of Afghanistan were 36% people live below the poverty level mobile phones still have penetration rates up to 40% with 12 million of 30 million people subscribing to mobile services. In this country necessity has become the mother of innovation. According to an article in the Telegraph, since 2009 the Afghanistan Nation Police has been paying salaries through mobiles, rather than in cash. Immediately following this innovation, police officers saw a 10% to 30% increase in their salaries, reveling that corrupt middlemen were stealing the difference for themselves. Some commentators believe mobile payments to the police has prevented defections to the Taliban who were previously able to pay higher salaries.The mobile banking system by which policemen are now paid is a version of the M-Pesa service that has existed in Afghanistan for years and become highly successful in countries like Kenya. To over come language and literacy barriers the system uses interactive voice recognition.It is predicted that this payment system will be extended other branches of the Afghan Army and government in an attempt to weed out corruption.

While the United States has a moderately successful online banking model, the Afghan mobile banking model is more interesting than the US where banks are beginning to learn that the occasional commercial and being able to check balances on mobiles is not innovative enough for a supposedly technologically advance country.

While the United States does lag behind in mobile banking, the American banking system is not necessarily to blame.  Like the Afghan necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention mobile banking model shows, mobile banking is developing to fulfill different needs in different parts of the world.

For example, in Africa, mobile banking is enabling people to pay their utility bills, meaning they do not need to spend a whole day once a month traveling to the city to pay their utility bills. Mobile banking is also helping get resources to people who need it most, for example the local government can send hardship payments directly to the people in need via SMS.

In Germany, mobile payments is being used to make Internet shopping safer and with a lower-than-average adoption of credit cards in Germany it enables online shopping using just your bank account and your mobile phone.

In parts of Asia, migrant workers are now able to send money safely and securely home.

And finally in America, mobile banking is being used so that people can keep better tack of their finances and pay bills via their mobile.

Why do I need a political correspondent when I have 1,000 Facebook Friends

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
—A.J. Liebling

In the past Americans have had to rely on broadcast and print media to get the news and therefore were inevitably exposed to biases of their sources. News anchors and news producers strategically select which guest to appear on their shows in order to support their own beliefs, and journalists twist their words to create a bias favorable to their political ideology when explaining a news story. Behind the actual news casters and writers of course are the owners, board members, and investors of the news companies. Often the companies that own large news organizations like NBC, ABC, and FOX have parent companies that have particular economic interests and political agendas. For example, Viacom (which used to be Westhousing Electric CO.) is the parent corporation of news network CBS; and General Electric Co. which was the 13th largest donor to the Bush campaign in 2000 owns NBC.
I’m sure we all remember Mr. Johnsons’ rather passionate slightly insane lecture about how corporate America, the rich white ‘Man’, and biased journalist were ruining news media. To sum up my point, direct ties in the world of corporate America are unbelievably extensive and these ties can cause seriously bias and compromise news coverage. The parents of most news corporations are profit-making corporations that conduct themselves like other corporations when it comes to corrupting American politics. Long story short, many Americans see the news of the world through the political lends of people they don’t know.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
—The Wizard
The Wizard of Oz

If you share this pessimistic, disheartened, disenchanted view of news media you may be wondering where you should get your news from. Who can you trust to help you form political opinions? Well what about your friends, specifically your Facebook friends.

According to our guest lecturer, the majority of Americans still get their news from the television broadcast media like FOX and CNN, however the internet is rapidly growing as a source of news. As the internet continues to expand and become more important in peoples’ lives, so have social media websites. Blogs and Facebook have become a growing source of news for many Americans and in many ways are improving the quality of news. This personalization of journalism allows individuals to broadcast their own bias or political opinions.

Previously in class, we have discussed the problem of assessing the reliability and creditability of anonymous internet bloggers who double as journalist. However I believe that in the future of social media and blogging this is a problem that will solve itself. Intelligent, well organized, well written, blogs containing well supported political ideas will eventually spread by way of the Wall. Bloggers who have their content spread will eventually gain their own type of “cyber” credit on the internet.

For example, today I came across a blog written by Professor Walter Russell Mead. He wrote a fairly extensive, but relatively short considering the complexity of the issue, analysis of why the “Blue” (or socialist) system was failing in the inter-cities of America and then published it to his blog linked to the website The American Interest. The name of the of the piece is “Why Blue Can’t Save The Inner Cities Part I” and his blog is titled VIA MEADIA (I thought it was clever).

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/17/why-blue-cant-save-the-inner-cities-part-i/

Professor Mead is a professor at Bard and Yale and considered one of the leading students on American foreign Policy.  Mead regularly writes for several journals, magazines and newspapers such as Foreign Affairs, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. He is currently on the staff of Foreign Affairs as a book reviewer and on the editorial board of The American Interest. To say the least, he is a very educated intellectual and I’d say his opinions are well supported. To be blunt he is a better person to listen to than Glenn Beck or god forbid Keith Olbermann. Sadly he doesn’t have his own talk show.

I found his blog incredibly well written and profound, and agreed with his political ideology. After reading several of the articles, I suggest his blog to four friends, two on my side of the political spectrum and two on the opposite, as well as posting it on Facebook.

Credible, provocative, and insightful bloggers will gain notoriety on the internet in a similar fashion. I believe the growth in popularity of the blogs of individual intellects who don’t have their hands in the cookie jar like the other news companies will help improve the quality of news and help people become more educated in their personal political ideology.

With its growing popularity Facebook will inevitably play a role in how people develop their personal political ideology. When someone posts a news story on Facebook, the commentary and insight on the politics of the event is provided by his or her friends, not professional commentators.

This has its pros and cons depending on how you look at it. Personally, the majority of my friends don’t have PHDs and are not well read in issues like the pros and cons of defined contribution versus defined benefits retirement plans. However, I do have a couple of friends I’d be interested in discussing the debt ceiling with or who could have an intelligent conversation about the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. And I would be willing to predict as I get older and make new friends we will be more and more qualified to discuss politics and comment about news stories. When matters are less technical i would like to know the opinions of my friends and family over the talking heads on CNN.

So whether it is used for a direct source of commentary or as a medium to trade insightful blogs Facebook and other source media sites are playing an important role in how the public develops political opinions.


A side thought on this matter.

Many people do not like to post political things on Facebook for fear of hurting their social image or rocking the boat. No one loves seeing their friends get into heated political discussions that 9 times out of 10 end in some one calling some one else Hitler or a Nazi (This is real. 9 times out of 10 this is how political discussions end on the internet. It’s called Godwin’s law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) So instead of post news stories and political editorials to everyone from “that guy at the bar” to your mother, people might just move to Google+ and create a specific circle for talking about current events and politics with people they feel comfortable with or who share their same ideas.

Boop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLQerkpPUK8

Vidoe blog interview with Docotor Boop.

During the interview my sound kept cutting out. I hope doctors in third world countries have better internet than CIW.

Thanks to Malik for helping me up load the video.

Whoops

Im sorry yall but the interview video wont upload because it is in the wrong format.

Technology and Health in the eyes of a brain surgeon.

Cyber medicine.


This week’s lecture covered technology’s role in the development of modern medicine.   Communications technology is expanding access to medical care to parts of the world that lack even the most basic infrastructure.  Through programs like Telemedicine and Mhealth this field is being pioneered.  However it is also helping expand medical research and care in developed countries with sites such as Patients like me and Web MD.  In the rapidly developing field of online medicine the role doctors and drug companies is changing.

During class the professor mentioned that using ICTs and technology like MMS and video chatting, a patient’s condition can be diagnosed with an 80% accuracy rate.  While this is far from the current US standards, it is a giant leap forward for medicine in developing countries.  With access to the right ICTs and correct medical personal, the need for “the village doctor” is diminished.   Pharmaceutical companies are also expanding their drug tests to developing regions is the hopes of better understanding the effects of their drugs since the patients are not taking other drugs that many conflict with the results. (As opposed to the United States and Europe where a person is taking on average six different pills at a time).   Being able to get a diagnosis and obtain the correct medicine without a prescribe cuts out the need to see a doctor and reduces the cost of medical care. 

I am doubtful that technology could ever come to completely replace a physician, however there is currently a great lack of medical personnel in the world due to rapidly expanding populations. Some countries have ratios as small as .06 doctors per ever 1000 people (Numbers Here).  Technology and ICTs can play a crucial role in improving medical care in populations such as these where it would take years to train doctors.  Not every situation requires a full-fledged doctor.  Teams of a few carefully trained surgeons in basic procedures and nurses supplemented by ITC’s linked to a medical data center and lead by a head professional physician could drastically improve medical care for thousands.

The professor mentioned that some doctors are worried that their prestige will suffer and that they will loose influence in the medical, field. However I believe that in the future and with the expansion of technology, a doctors worth and prestige will be measured by what they contribute to the medical data bases used by other doctors.

In addition I conducted an interview with Dr. Boop about how ITCs are changing the field of neurology and effecting patient care.

Doctor Boop (also Scott Boop's Dad if any of you had the pleasure of meeting him when he was here two weeks ago) is Chairman and Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery at LeBonheur Hospital. His full bio can be found here https://www.semmes-murphey.com/dr_bio.php?dr_id=6.  He is one of the leading physicians in his field and an active member of The Society of Neurological Surgeons. I cannot say enough about his accomplishments and character.
The quality of the interview is very very poor but here are the questions I was asking.

Interview questions with Doctor Boop.

In your field how often do you use technology to communicate with other doctors? other patients?

Have your heard of other doctors using technology to diagnosis patients?

How do you think doctors will react to their patients being able to obtain the majority of the information about their conditions online rather than visiting a doctor?


In a field as complex as neurosurgery do you think it is possible to practice through intermediaries?

How do you feel about sites like Patients Like Me?  What about sites like Web MD?

What do you think are some down sides to the use of technology for communication between doctors and patients?

ICTs, Education, and Political Agendas.

"We do have to make sure that there are computers in a computer age inside classrooms and that they work and that there's internets that are actually -- there are Internet connections that actually function. And I think that those states that are going to do well and those countries that do well are the ones that are going to continue to be committed to making education a priority."



The above quote is no different from the average political rhetoric expounded by our government leaders on a daily basis. In fact statements like this have become so bland, that they go unnoticed in mainstream news media.  Elevating the standard of education using ITCs is a no brainier ever since information and intellectual abilities became part of our livelihood.  In the modern world education and access to education have become so important that statements like these are on par with statements like “Americans need food to survive” and “America needs to increase national security.” No Duh.

Often the only distinction on policies in education and technology is who says them.  (As long as you don't say "internets" its ok.) Democrats seems to benefit more from their more widely publicized stance on education, yet Republicans are beginning to steal some of their thunder (Although with the budget crisis and impending need for cut backs the Dems have effectively and unfairly demonized their opponents. Whoops I got political.)   Education policy is always a crowd pleaser in speeches and platforms, but takes years to fund, institute and finally measure effectiveness.   This makes education policy relatively low on the political agenda before other policies that yield more immediate results. (You know, below things that get done in 4 years. 8 if he’s lucky.) 

Besides the good publicity and political support, there are several benefits’ politicians see in  using technology for expansionary education policies. Some, such as Obama believe that a better access to technology will lead to a better education system for the under privileged youth of America and will help a grow a prosperous middle class and shorten the income disparity gap. Others like Congresswomen Marsha Black burn R (TN), who I interned with last summer, believe that in order for the next generation to compete in the global markets with the emerging economic behemoths like Japan, China, and India, we must first have a competing education system, that means a technologically advanced curriculum.  And lastly others, such as Mitt Romney, prominent front runner in the 2014 presidential race for the Republican Party, believe that expanding education  using technology, not just at home but especially abroad, can be an effect way to increase national security and end terrorism.  The question is how to rapidly advance education for these purposes while the politicians are preferably still in office, or even just alive.  This is where ITCs and the Internet come in. 



Last week we learned about how Uruguay had launched a program with the goal of issuing one laptop per child. The goals of the project were to modernize rural parts of the country while giving under privileged students access to education.  The project was revolutionary and while like the professor said it will take years to measure its overall impact, its immediate effectiveness seemed to make it a success.  

Therefore one has to ask, if it worked in Uruguay, why not try it in the United States?  Would issuing one lap top per child in the United States succeed in elevating education and in promoting the three goals mentioned above.  And for now let’s just assume that America doesn’t have a 15 trillion dollar debt and we can afford this.

For a while now politicians ranging from county mayors, to the President of the United States and other top US officials have been stating that education standards need to improve.  Passing out laptops is an extremely tangible concept when thinking about increasing standards of education by introducing technology. People can see teachers giving power points and kids typing on their laptops. Every kid, provided he has access to the internet now has access to the entire world's knowledge. It’s a pretty powerful thing to think about. Kids in the inter city schools of Memphis now have the same access to the cataloged data as kids in private prep schools.  

This certainly levels the playing field but would it increase learning in the inter city? Well it is hard to say for certain but according to a program in Shelby County TN the immediate answer is uncertain.  

Shelby County is divided into two school districts, the Memphis City Schools MCS and Shelby County Schools SCS.  MCS has a much higher poverty rate than the surrounding county and is allotted 60% of the county’s income revenue for education; SCS gets the other 40%.  MCS and its political leaders typically tends to invest in ICTS such as laptops, computer laps, and projectors while SCS not being able to afford ICTS typically spends on increased teacher salary and new text books. To date SCS has a higher graduation rate, higher average ACT, and higher Standardized test scores.  While there are numerous numerous immeasurable outliers in this situation it does prove that ICTs can’t always be a quick fix to education systems without qualified teachers and dedicated students.  Student guidance is just as important if not more important than passing out ICTs.  So maybe ICTs aren’t quite the answer for Obama’s education agenda. 


On the other hand I definitely believe that in the future with the global economy it will be extremely important for students to be technologically proficient and literate.  When more and more business is conducted over technology's mediums, when more and more graphic art and marketing is being designed on the computers, when most new inventions are intangible computer programs, the importance of the youth of America being familiar with the workings of technology cannot be under estimated. My friend in South Korea is required to take and pass several computer programming and computer science classes.  How are American students supposed to compete with such education standards abroad. 
In this sense,  passing out laptops to all students and mandating that they become computer literate is a very logical way to make sure Americans are competitive in the global market. Marsha Blackburn’s education goal would definitely benefit from a program like the one in Uruguay. However the laptops are issued to the students, not to replace their history books, but to be a medium for them to learn about how to apply technology in the real world, make websites, and write codes. 



Romney’s goals for expanding education through the application of technology go even further.  As stated in his video, Romney believes that by expanding education and technological resources to hostile counties, America will be able to essentially export democracy by spreading its ideology through technology. Access to education and the internet will enlighten youths and led them away from terrorist organizations and teach them about democracy.  Personally I think this is a noble goal, but has too many negative implications.  Enemies can spread propaganda online just as easily as America. It could cause a culture shock and further alienate youths that are already unsure about there attitudes towards America. It is also expensive. On the other hand, knowledge is power and in a scenario such as North Korea it is apparent that uncensored access to the internet could drastically improve the country but educating people about the unfair practices of its government.

I think expanding and improving education through the application of ITCs will be an essential part of the future of not just America, but also the world and that it has the flexibility to accomplish a variety of goals. 

Spoon feeding Science to America

Last Tuesday, I made a comment in class about how it wasn’t important for Americans to understand science in the news as long as they understood the effects of the science. Now to some this sounds a bit fascist.  However I truly believe that the science world has become too complex for the common citizen to have a substantial say in the matter.  The professor said in class 70% of Americans reported wanting to hear more about science in the news.  I am not sure this means 70% of American want to go pick up Scientific America and read about the debate between Quantum Physics and String Theory. It just means they would like to know more about how science and technology are changing our world. The question is how?
              As we talked about the growing disconnect between the scientific community, the journalism world, and the public, some people in class suggested we bridge the gap by having scientist take more humanities courses and teach them how to better communicate their ideas.  Frankly, I think this is insulting to the hard work scientist do. I feel like its undermining the breakthroughs they are making by asking them to dummy it down for the sake of producing a news story.  I know that not all scientists go to work in a white lab coat and have chemistry set.  Many are very passionate about their fields of study and are more then willing to talk about their work.  The problem is once they start to explain it, really explain the nuts and bolts, too many people tune out.  They find it boring or too difficult. This doesn’t mean we should look at scientist as the root of the problem and the gap.  Others in class suggested the problem was journalism.  Journalism in the news isn’t a high school science class.   It is not suppose to teach you how photosynthesis works (although hopefully we all already know).  Its not their job to explain the sets and stages and chemistry that takes place in order for CO2 to become O2.  Journalism’s job is to say that air goes in the tree, oxygen comes out, and we should start planting tree along roads because some scientist has spent his life’s working conducting research on the matter and now he is receiving a noble prize.  And I understand this a weak example of how journalism should approach such a story, but the point is I think if journalism uses any chemistry in the article it has already given the public to much credit and has made a mistake. However journalism can’t seem to get it together because many science journalist are losing their jobs. So that would leave the public with the responsibility to bring the gap.  The public, many of whom failed high school science, and even more who failed college science, has to single handedly bring the gap between science and understanding. That doesn’t sound right. These scientist have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars in education dedicated to working in their area of expertise. How would it be fair to ask to common man to get up to speed in one article.  So if these three aren’t to blame for the disconnect then who is? I say the government. It is an absolute necessity for the government to start channeling more money into public education science departments at lower levels and for them to start setting the bar higher.  No more of this No Child Left Behind bs. The Gov has the responsibility to make the public ‘science literate.’  Also Journalism needs to do better marketing research and stop firing potentially profitable science journalist.   

Hello?

Save your hands from Arthritis. Pick up the phone.

“Call you? That’s so 1990.”
In this day and age so many of us have come to rely on text as the dominant form of communication in many of our relationships.  E-mails, Facebook chats, and SMSs vastly out number phone calls made or videos sent.  Text is a great way to communicate information such as instructions, meeting times, and news stories, and Facebook and E-mail have given people the ability to stay connected and maintain friendships even after many years and over many miles. However, a word of caution, I believe text can be just as harmful as helpful in some cases.  While information is rarely misunderstood, tone, feeling and most of all sarcasm rarely make it past the screen.  We have all heard the expression  “It’s not what you said. Its how you said it.” And while there are some variations in how one uses the word  O.K.  (“okay, kay, k, kk”) we have to ask, is that really enough information to go off during this 3 or 4 hour text conversation.  And while some times it is more convenient to use text, for example when your working or in class, other times people will go out of their way to use text messaging and avoid phone calls, for example when driving. Long emails and hour texting conversations could be communicate much more quickly over the phone and give much more information about how the person.  Tone of voice and direct dialogue are two key factors of communication left out by text conversations.  From personal experience I think we can all remember a time where a text message was taken the wrong way by a friend and had a negative outcome. I also believe people are much more likely to say things without thinking about them, even though they are writing and typing them, than they would be if they we talking to the person directly.  Phones and the invitation of video conference sites like Skype and ooVoo should not even have to compete with SMS as the medium for information exchange.  Again there are many advantages to using text to communicate. Text messages can be quick, simple, and answered at the receivers convenience, whether it be 1 hour 1 day or 1 week.  Many people will say they feel like they have to drop everything to use a phone, or how they just don’t have that much to say if they call. I am not hating on SMS or facebook chat. I am just as guilty as everyone else when it comes to going over the limit each month. 
However, with Skype and iChat growing at exponential rates, and the advantages of face to face conversations and vocal communication I would not be surprised if texting becomes “so 2005”

Merger of AT&T Blog post 1

In the beginning, there was one. 

In the mid 1980s the mobile phone service industry was a monopoly headed by the company Ma Bell. As part of a program to regulate monopolies, the US Senate used anti-trust legislation to break apart Bell creating nine smaller mobile service providers. However, throughout the 90s and early 2000s these nine smaller companies began to naturally merger again. Now in 2010 there are four major providers: Verizon, AT&T, T-mobile, and Spirit.   Currently AT&T is attempting negotiate a merger with T-mobile narrowing the number to three.  This merger has come under scrutiny by the US Senate who is concerned the cell phone service providing industry will become a duopoly.  If the Senate approves the merger, AT&T/T-mobile and Verizon will control more than 80% of the wireless service industry with Spirit coming in third with 16% control.  The Senate then believes Verizon’s acquisition of Spirit would be inevitable, resulting in two companies, AT&T/t-mobile and Verizon/Spirit, controlling 97% of the market.  After already once dismantling the industry the Senate is weary about allowing the companies to continue on this path, fearing high prices for consumers and lower quality service.  In fact the hearings regarding the merger have been cleverly named “The AT&T/t-mobile Merger: Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again”. 

The purpose of the Senate hearings are to address the constitutionality of government intervening in the private sector, the effects the merger will have on the economy, and how to protect American consumers from duopoly rule. However from a communications standpoint there are other questions to address.  For example, how will having only two uniform service providers help in the trade of information and expanding of technologies?

The AT&T that led Ma Bell and Bell Labs is the company credited with the invention of the transistor in 1947 and more recently fiber optic cables 1977.  Excellent management of their labs and great technological breakthroughs have allowed not just AT&T but its competitors to prosper as well. Each year T-mobile and Spirit have to play millions to use AT&T and Verizon cellular towers in areas they cannot afford to build their own. 

Some argue that the merger provides the industry with more resources for research and will hopefully continue to yield new communications technology.  However others are concerned the companies will not reinvest the extra revenue and continue to import most of their products and technology from China just to brand it with their label when it enters the market.  On average, AT&T makes 17% more revenue pre-customer than T-mobile.  They also claim that it was the intense competition between providers that led to the rapid innovation during the years after 1984 when Ma Bell was disbanded.  I believe that having a more or less uniform wireless network under the duopoly system will lead to better interfacing and trading of data and information, increase the industries opportunities to compete abroad by providing them with more revenue and a larger domestic base, and increase research in the field of ITCs. However, the duopoly system will require stricter government over sight to make sure the two companies do not misallocate their excess revenue to management.