Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Misunderstanding Broadband
Dear Colleagues, Thank you, Allen Hammond, for your clarifying message. The difference between ICT, the tool and the information that gets communicated using the tool is, of course, fundamental. When I used the phrase narrowband everywhere, I was not intending this to be construed in a very narrow literal way, and refer just to, say, the use of outmoded technology. Far from it. What I intended to have understood is the idea that the very best of technology should be used to get the lowest cost of communication, AND the information going over the infrastructure is simply what is most valuable and at the same time affordable to the user. And I should, of course, stress that value in this case is not what I think is valuable but what the user of the tool thinks is valuable. And this issue of value to the user is critical to the question of sustainability. I have written many times that there are three numbers that are important. The cost, the price and the value. A development initiative has the chance of being sustainable when the cost is low and the value is high. The price needs to fall in between the low cost and the high value, and it needs to be affordable to the users in the context of the local economy. [As an aside, if all development projects were put through this test during the appraisal and justification process, most would never get approved for funding and resources would be much less wasted]. ICT and connectivity, like so many other themes of development, tends to be pushed into development rather than getting pulled in by the intended beneficiaries. I cannot tell you how many times over my career in development consultancy that local people have asked me why development money never is available to help them get what they need, but only for things that are in our projects [that is on our NORTH agenda]. So back to the basic question. How to get the most value from ICT into the beneficiary community? And my answer to that is very best technology being used to facilitate some (rather than narrowband) electronic two way communication everywhere. This should give the right cost, price, value and affordability profile and therefore be sustainable. Sincerely Peter Burgess Peter Burgess ATCnet in New York Tel: 212 772 6918 Fax: 707 371 7805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for secure messages This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] How Much Bandwidth is Necessary?
On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 08:26 AM, Cornelio Hopmann wrote: Hence: if the alternative is to connect many (and through-out the country) by low-bandwidth or a few with megabyte links, go for the first. The latter will come -almost by itself- as technology costs fall and demand increases. I would say rather that the different technologies that are available are so different and so randomly effective it's impossible to say that either low-bandwidth or high-bandwidth is better. Pragmatically, a more scatter-shot approach would have more likelihood of succeeding. Launch many projects with many technologies. Some will work, some won't. Learn from the failures and repeat the successes. Every time a new technology comes along give it a chance. Not only that, but the high cost of a PC or a laptop needs to be considered. A PC is expensive, whether it's connected to high-bandwidth or low. So a substantial sum of the total ICT investment isn't going to change no matter what the bandwidth plan might be. simon This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Misunderstanding Broadband
I agree with this Al. I'll attempt to clarify another aspect of the confusion in the usage of the term Broadband. In many usages broadband implies more bandwidth than narrowband. This is the typical usage in the context of areas with well-developed traditional communications infrastructures, typically PTT and PSTN based. The other aspect of the term broadband has less to do with the amount of delivered bandwidth than the fact that it uses different infrastructure than narrowband. Narrowband typically means DS-0, analog-modems, a copper loop from a Central Office, and classic phone switch. Broadband might use any of cable modems, DSL, licensed wireless or unlicensed (e.g. 802.11). I agree that in many cases surprisingly little bandwidth can be quite useful, and at the same time in 802.11 (or similar technologies) is the cheapest way to deliver access bandwidth. Finally, we need to separately consider the access bandwidth and the backhaul bandwidth. In many small village environments 802.11 can very economically support several mbps of shared local bandwidth. The monthly expense of the backhaul connection (VSAT and ISP fee) dominates the cost and limits the available bandwidth. -- Jim On 11/6/03 11:22 AM, Al Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to reply to Peter Burgess and clear up an important misconception. Connectivity is essential for local networking, for access to information, for local content generation, for increasing transparency and trust, for e-commerce--so its not the goal, but it is a critical tool. In most developing communities, especially rural, wireless access is the only affordable approach. Broadband wireless is critical to development, because existing and especially next generation technologies allow you to connect widely dispersed users with a single piece of equipment--thus aggregating the demand and lowering the cost of access--and to do so in unlicensed spectra, thus enabling small entrepreneurs and non-proft groups to provide access without waiting for large carriers (in principle--there are still regulatory barriers in many places). WiFi networks already cover ranges of 100 miles or more, with repeaters and tuned anntennae--in Laos, in California, in India, and in many other places. WiMax networks will cover whole cities (30 mile braodcast range, not point to point) or link widely scattered local WiFi networks. (3-G cellular data networks have many similar features, but operate only in liscensed spectra.) Thus the critical feature of broadband wireless is that it will lower end user cost, by aggregating more demand. The fact that it is broadband and allows more multimedia content (such as video mail and video conferencing, and face/voice recognition for secure identity in transaction, and more intuitive graphic interfaces--all important for semi-literate users) is simply a bonus. The key fact is the superior economics of wireless broadband from the point of the end user--these are not luxury class items, but instead absolutely critical to spreading connectivity access to poor communities at prices they can afford. I think it important that the ICT for development community become aware of these characteristics, so they don't unknowingly oppose advances that could really make a huge difference in poor communities. This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. 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 For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
