Dear Colleagues, The $100 computer for those on the other side of the digital divide has once again surfaced in what are mainly self-promoting (occasionally well intended) pronouncements from various quarters.
At best there is a polite scam here, one that involves self-promotion and personal/corporate agrandizement. At worst this involves misleading efforts by academic skim-scam artists, i.e., those who take ideas that have a nice ring to them, ignore evidence, relevence and context, and "pronounce" on them at priviliged venues such as the recently held World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos. There have been dozens of efforts at the so-called $100 computer, most a scaled down version of what is generally accepted as a current "state of the art" computer. As history would have it, the $100 computer is facing three obstacles (actually four). The first is the fact that the cost of a "state of the art" computer is closing in on the actual cost of these machines targeted at the other side of the digital divide. In many situations the cost/benefit analysis of a cheap but limited computer vs. a slightly more expensive state of the art computer weighs in on the side of the state of the art computer. This is especially true when the total cost of a project or undertaking is considered, and not just the savings (and shortcomings) of a cheaper computer. The second obstacle is the cost and functionality of a "state of the art" phone. The wireless device (cell phone, etc.) is closing in on the desirability of a cheap computer and -as the other side of the digital divide has demonstrated millions of times- the cell phone's benefit/cost ratio weights heavily on the side of the consumer spending personal income to secure ICT access. The third obstacle is, of course, that computers for the other side of the digital divide require lots of other inputs and skills, especially compared to their competition. Technical support (including the ability to fend off virus spams from this side of the digital divide) and power are but two of those required inputs. The fourth obstacle is the really big obstacle, and that is the twin problems of the common sense of those for whom the devices are intended, and (alas) the self-interest of those NGOs, government agencies, and others who would benefit from programs involving the distribution of cheap computers, benefits they would receive whether the distribution was actually a success or not. Consider a $100 computer with its own renewable energy source (solar, fuel cell using cow dung, or wind power). Most intended individual beneficiaries would have one question. Can the power source be used to re-charge a cell phone or power a radio? If yes, most would take the package, discard the computer and keep the power source. Most community beneficiaries would try to keep the computer working and use the power source for all three devices (computer, cell phone, radio -maybe TV). Of course, all this deals with the costs of the device, and the technical challenges of using it; they do not deal with its realizable added value in the context in which it is intended to be used. At Davos the skim-scam proposal by a well-known "academic guest" of the Forum was tied to minimum orders of 1 million machines. That puts the machines bill at $100 million and an implementation budget figure that approaches half a billion dollars. Balance this against the educational budgets of those on the other side of the digital divide. If such proposals had to face a "truth in promotion" law their proponents would be locked up for fraud. This is not, of course, to be negative on the role of computers as part of ICT in bridging the digital divide, just a call for honest analysis and a voice for those intended beneficiaries. There are places and contexts where an old machine will do, or a state-of-the-art machine is right. There are almost no places where one can air drop $100 machines to all and sundry and expect miracles. If asked, most of those places would have other priorities, many of which may be linked to effective and efficient organizational or community use of a variety of ICTs. So why does a bad idea live on? It lives on because on the one hand it does not have to face the reality of the market. It does not sit on the shelf side by side with the cell phone option, over there, on the other side of the digital divide. It is pitched to those who could fund it and supported by those (NGOs, INGOs, IGOs) who would benefit from the logistics of delivering the devices (or benefit from fine wine at Davos) even if not successfully achieving the aims of the programs. It is time for three things to happen here. One is the honest assessment of the evidence. The $100 computer is no more than a minor bit player in bridging the digital divide. ICT is wider than that. One could benefit from reading the report of the International ICT Literacy Panel "Digital Transformation: A Framework for ICT Literacy" where, talking about ICT literacy, even they understood this truth. See: http://www.ets.org/research/ictliteracy/index.html The second is for the intermediate players to be more forthcoming in what they know, even if it means smaller implementation budgets for NGOs, and allied groups. They have a lot more knowledge and wisdom that they have been using, since to use it could mean securing less project, program and core funding to sustain themselves. It is a sad state of affairs when millions are spent on failed projects, only to celebrate the occasional mini-successes, and then fail to translate lessons leading into action. Rather than lament that they are not at Davos, let the NGOs call the academic skim-scam artists to task for their irresponsible behaviour. Lastly, the one thing that ICTs have done, and mainly via wireless communications, is to start giving a voice to the poor. This has occurred initially in their own lives as they use cell phones for personal benefit. Civil society groups, NGOs, and last but not least, the donors, should respect that starting point and work out from there. In large measure we know what we should not be doing here. We probably know as well what we should be doing, and that should be small scale efforts that carry within them their own seeds for self-replication, with elements that allow them to neural network outward, transfering lessons to other groups and communities. So long as we let the academic skim-scam artists run with nicely turned "sound bites" at the expense of an honest assessment of the evidence, we are all guilty of supporting a fraud. So long as some of us accept the task of delivering programs that are pre-ordained to fail we are all guilty of fraud for self-interest. It is a sobering thought that the global beer making community (large and small) has done a better job incorporating technology across the boundries of the digital divide over the past quarter century than has the ICT community. Maybe we should pay more attention to those who make the beer than to those who drink the wine. Sam Lanfranco Distributed Knowledge Project York University ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
