|
Report of the CSTI plenary working
meeting,
2 July 2002
See the meeting agenda
Read
the report in PDF format
The CSTI members and their representatives
met on 17 January2002 at Hôtel Matignon for a plenary meeting.
The Board's opinion, given on 8 March 2002 and
communicated to the Prime Minister on 19 March 2002 by the CSTI
working group moderators, took stock of CSTI's work and the results
obtained since it was set up on 11 April 2001. The opinion addressed
the development of high speed Internet, services, training and
R&D, fully reflecting the CSTI discussions.
WORKING
GROUPS
- Group
A "Infrastructures and networks"
- Group
B "Applications and services"
- Group
C "Needs for specialists"
- Group
D "Research and Development"
The aim of this report is not to give a
verbatim statement of the speeches but to outline the discussions
of the debates.
Group
A : " Infrastructures and
networks"
moderated by Mr Thierry Breton and presented by the rapporteur,
Mr Frédéric Platet.
In the wake of the recommendations expressed
in the opinion of 8 March, the question of the rollout of high
speed Internet is still highly topical.
To clarify certain points addressed in the previous opinion, the
working group commissioned three studies and a paper on specific
issues:
The first of these studies concerns the unbundling of the local
loop in the countries where it has taken place. The study must
identify the problems raised by unbundling: how far has it been
taken? (in terms of unbundling, but also in terms of market shares
held by alternative operators); the technical and operational
conditions; and the best practices seen in a certain number of
countries. The study will be undertaken by the agency Analysis
Consulting and should lead to a written report and an audiotape
by October.
Another study concerns WiFi technology and was entrusted to the
École Nationale Supérieur de Télécommunications
(ENST-Higher national telecommunications school). It is aimed
at making draft recommendations for the Board.
Claude Guéguen, Research Director at ENST, gave a paper
at the meeting on the main characteristics of WiFi technologies
and the questions it raises.
Debates, remarks and comments on the Wifi
paper :
Claude Guéguen's paper raised the following issues:
Lastly, a third study was launched on the question of power line
carriers (PLC) with, in particular, the study of the German case
and the lessons to be learnt from it for the French market.
Mrs Isabelle Guillaume of the company EasyPlug (joint venture
with Thomson Multimédia and Schneider Electric) presented
PLC technology and the questions it may give rise to.
PLC technology is today rapidly developing in many countries.
To accompany this trend it would be necessary to rapidly define
a harmonised standard in Europe and a derogatory framework for
experimentation with local authorities.
Debates, remarks and comments on the PLC paper :
PLC technology appears to be particularly attractive
in the domestic market since there is no shortage of plugs in
houses (20 per household in France as against 2 telephone sockets).
However, low cost equipment cannot be produced until after a precise
and adapted European standard has been defined. Given the current
state of the technology, PLC equipment appears less expensive
than WiFi technology but more expensive than MTNA.
Group
B : " Applications and services " moderated
by Mrs Anne-Sophie Pastel, and presented by Mr Daniel Kaplan.
After having analysed the various questions
on the development of applications and services, and identified
several levers for action, the working group chose to prioritise
its aims.
Therefore, in accordance with the proposals
of Group B and after discussion by all the members of the Board
present, the following order of priority was chosen :
- Uses in companies and particularly
in SMEs. The uses of this category should be specified because,
while equipment indicators exist, the same does not apply for
uses.
- E-administration, on the one hand to raise the
productivity of State services and also so that the development
of e-government encourages developers of applications and services.
Regarding this matter, many European benchmarks exist and a public
report by Mr Bruno Lasserre (which should perhaps be updated)
provides answers to several questions. This issue appears to be
widely connected today to that of State reform.
- Social utility applications (health, education, local
and associative life) the development of which could boost the
development of ICTs. The e-Europe project has extensively addressed
the education issue; CSTI could take a closer interest in a specific
topic (for instance health).
The equipment and connection of households.
This should result from the development of uses and not the
opposite. Yet why is France lagging behind? The causes should
be analysed and a study commissioned analysing the commonly accepted
reasons for this situation.
-
Lastly, corporate development and the information
society, which should mainly result from the previous measures.
Group
C : " Needs for specialists " moderated
by Mr Bernard Larrouturou and presented by the rapporteur, Mr
Gérard Corré.
Many documents circulated within the working
group on the long term labour market but the group was unable
to prioritise its aims or determine practical recommendations
other than those made by CSTI on 8 March 2002.
The working group suffers from the low number of persons attending
its discussions, whereas many members initially expressed their
interest for this crucial issue.
Group
D : " Research and Developement " presented
by Mr Gérard Roucairol..
The group called on all CSTI members to react
rapidly and effectively to the marginalisation of Europe and
France as regards ICTs.
A study by Idate presented during the meeting compares the American,
European and French R&D budgets devoted to ICTs; its final
document was attached to the dossier handed to each participant
in the meeting. The European Union spent in 2000 approximately
three times less than the United States and twice less than Japan
on ICT research and development.
France is an average European country in this respect but the
reduction in defence budgets and the change in status of CNET
could rapidly make France slip even further behind.
The ratios are getting worse and the gap is widening. Do France
and Europe wish to continue participating in the development of
ICTs?
DDebates, remarks and comments on the
paper :
The current financial situation of new technology
companies is soon going to force them to decrease their research
budgets. The State must therefore increase its support for industrial
R&D to compensate this budgetary reduction.
The present strength of the United States resides
largely in its capacity to attract foreign brains into its territory.
France does not appear capable today of attracting the most promising
foreign students. The country's lack of appeal therefore limits
the success of R&D.
In the United States, ICT research is largely carried out as part
of military projects. France and Europe do not appear today capable
of carrying out such projects. Therefore security questions and
particularly network security questions are sometimes not addressed
by French researchers with as much care and resources as they
should be and as they deserve.
Rather than dispersing the R&D effort on new technologies,
we need to state the main levers, for instance by specifying the
costs of American patents for French companies in several spheres
of competence. Such analyses already exist today and should allow
R&D efforts to be oriented pragmatically. Furthermore, the
research effort should be oriented towards subjects where France
and Europe already have real assets.
The working group will specify recommendations before September,
particularly regarding proposed solutions, to get a text validated
by the members as a whole.
|
