>NetAction Action Alert
>Dec. 9, 1997
>For more info, send email to: stopceti who-is-at netaction.org
><http://www.netaction.org>.
>
>MICROSOFT AND CORPORATE ALLIES WANT TO CONTROL CALIFORNIA STATE
>UNIVERSITY'S TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM
>
>-- CETI plan will set up a for-profit corporation with $3.12 billion
>in projected revenue
>
>In an unprecedented grab to privatize technology at a public
>university, the California State University (CSU) system is moving to
>hand control of its inter-campus computer and telecommunications
>system to a private consortia managed by Microsoft and its hardware
>allies, GTE, Hughes and Fujitsu.
>
>The proposed consortia, called the California Education Technology
>Initiative (CETI), will be a for-profit partnership expected to
>generate over $3.12 billion in revenues over the next ten years,
>largely by creating a captive market for technology purchases by an
>estimated half million students, faculty and staff annually.
>
>For more information on the CETI plan, read the attached background and
>see: <http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/sip_ceti/>.
>
>HELP STOP THIS CORPORATE GRAB OF TECHNOLOGY AT A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY!
>
>Hearings are scheduled in the state Assembly on January 6, 1998. Send
>a fax to the leadership of the Assembly's Higher Education Committee
>and Education Budget Committee.
>
>NetAction has set up an automatic fax server at:
><http://www.netaction.org/fax/faxform.html>
>
>You can also contact the chairmen of these committees on your own to
>make your concerns heard:
>
>Assembly Higher Education Chairman Ted Lempert
> 916-445-7632 (phone) 916-324-6974 (fax)
>Assembly Education Budget Chairman Jack Scott
> 916-445-8211 (phone) 916-323-9420 (fax)
>
>We also urge you to call the leadership of the state Senate committees
>responsible for higher education:
>
>Senate Education Budget Chairman Jack O'Connell 916-445-5405
>Senate Education Committee Chairman Leroy Greene 916-445-7807
>
>While email is less effective, you can send messages to:
>Ted Lempert <mailto:Ted.Lempert@assembly.ca.gov>
>Jack Scott <mailto:Jack.Scott@assembly.ca.gov >
>Jack O'Connell <mailto:Senator.OConnell@sen.ca.gov>
>Leroy Green <mailto:Senator.Greene@sen.ca.gov>
>
>[...]
>The California State University (CSU) will serve over 500,000 students
>annually in its 22 campus system within ten years. Microsoft and its
>corporate partners intend to use that captive market and the
>endorsement of the CSU system to market products from the enterprise
>to CSU students, faculty and alumni and sell its products to
>university and business organizations across the country. The
>Business Plan for CETI explicitly notes that "the education market is
>a strategically important market for each of the partners," marking
>the corporate advantage they will each gain over competitors through
>the CETI contract.
>
>[...]
>The CETI proposal is being sold on the promise of $365 million in
>infrastructure investments over ten years by the corporate partners
>involved. Because the state of California is unwilling to spend those
>funds itself, they are handing a monopoly to these corporations worth
>many times that amount. The "self-funding" of the CETI proposal is
>largely based on locking students, faculty and staff into monopoly
>product purchases from the consortia, and locking out alternative
>purchasing options. Additionally, the plan calls for commercial
>advertising on campus computer systems to pay for the system, an
>unacceptable commercialization of the education environment.
>
>The proposal is also a danger to equal access to technology among
>students. The CETI proposal gives these corporations control of
>technology decisions about marketing a range of services to students
>that would have once been considered part of tuition at the
>University. We can expect economic stratification between haves and
>have-nots within the University as some students can afford these
>"enhanced" services and others are left out.
>
>This proposal for Microsoft and its allies to administer technology
>implementation at the CSU system, including developing classroom
>curriculum and training programs for students and staff, comes in the
>context of the ongoing privatization of technical education in the
>country. The lack of public funding for technical education and its
>ongoing privatization has allowed Microsoft to attain an
>anti-competitive control of technical training in the United States.
>This has allowed Microsoft to shape that education in ways that serve
>its individual corporate interests rather than the public good of open
>computing standards. See NetAction's own White Paper on Microsoft's
>overall monopoly strategy at http://www.netaction.org/msoft/world/
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Already, Microsoft-approved curriculum taught by Microsoft-approved
>instructors and audited by the Microsoft Corporation is taught at over
>300 college campuses across the country, including over 30 campuses in
>California. These Microsoft "Authorized Academic Training Program"
>participants are pulled into the Microsoft orbit through offers of
>free software and training for technical programs left underfunded by
>state governments and therefore vulnerable to Microsoft's corporate
>bribery.
>
>[...]
>For more info, contact Nathan Newman, NetAction Project Director, at:
>Phone: (510) 452-1820
>E-mail: stopceti who-is-at netaction.org
>
>Copyright 1997 by NetAction/The Tides Center. All rights reserved.
>Material may be reposted or reproduced for non-commercial use provided
>NetAction is cited as the source. NetAction is a project of The Tides
>Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
>
D S Hendler
University of Texas, Austin
Like many people engaged in violence,
they're sentimental
-Mamet