Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Bringing Connectivity to Under-Served Communities
Colleagues: I have great hopes for this discussion as the topic is as relevant today as ever and perhaps more so, given the recent backsliding in rural infrastructure as a direct result of truncated privatization processes. Here in Panama we have an interesting situation. I undertook a mission on behalf of the UNDP country office to the remote Darién region to learn why the public telephones (usually only one per village of 2000 or more inhabitants) don´t work. To my surprise, I found that the basic infrastructure is not only in pretty good shape but relatively sophisticated as well (would support up to 9.6 kbps data). The problem is in the last 100 meters between the rural radio tower/antenna and the telephone booth where situations with relatively simple solutions cause 80-90% of the problems (like people getting their coins and other objects jammed in the coin slots, short circuits in the interconnecting cable because of attempts to rob service, infrequent visits by supervisory personnel to remove full coinboxes). We are now working with the multinational corporation that operates the system and various development programs in the region to come up with a win-win project design that would include community education in system care, basic technical training, and local management. Meanwhile, the government has levied a stiff fine on this multinational for similar problems throughout the country. The company maintains that rural telephones are unprofitable and cannot be easily maintained, even though they constitute a lifeline for thousands of people. This is, of course, only a specific example of a more generic situation, but it was the inspiration behind the attached draft policy position. I would invite comments on it as well as ideas from the community on which organizations/donors might be interested in developing a regional or even a global program to comprehensively address rural connectivity and access issues. (More information on PFNet mentioned in the position note is available at http://www.peoplefirst.net.sb/General/PFnet.htm). Gary Garriott ICT for Development Advisor Panama SURF - UNDP PO Box 6314, Zone 5 Panama City, Panama Tel. 507 265 8168/8153 Fax 507 265 8445 + Rural ICT Infrastructure is the Forgotten Frontier The Position In the rush to jump on the ICT bandwagon, the attention of all donors and implementing agencies tends toward increasingly sophisticated and networked health, education and governance applications in urban areas where the latest hardware, reliable connectivity and available bandwidth are taken for granted. Forgotten are the hundreds of millions of people living in poverty and extreme poverty in rural and isolated regions where fundamental physical infrastructure including the provision of electrical energy is nonexistent. Except for one-off pilot projects that tend to be special cases of donor interest and resources (and recognized for their obvious public relations value), rural-based infrastructure is seen as passé and uninteresting. UNDP and other agencies that invest in poverty-reduction strategies should look more closely at implementing strategic rural access and connectivity programmes. The Context Most bilateral and multilateral aid agencies have limited their activities on behalf of rural ICT infrastructure to assisting host governments in writing universal service and access policies to be implemented by the private sector winners of telecommunications privatization processes. And yet the common experience worldwide is that once a private franchise or concession has been awarded, the promises made to extend service to rural areas are gradually forgotten as the difficulties of installing and maintaining unprofitable rural infrastructure mount. A significant back-sliding in rural ICT infrastructure is thus occurring as privatization proceeds. The Need Reliable access to information may be just as critical in isolated rural areas as in urban centers. The basic need to communicate with family, friends and associates is fundamental, but so is the acquisition of crucial health, agricultural and market information, not to mention ready access to education and training resources. However, rural needs are more easily satisfied with basic infrastructure supporting email and file transfer rather than more sophisticated web-based technology and applications. Very few policy-makers are aware that a range of relatively inexpensive intermediate or appropriate technology solutions exist to support lower end uses, such as email. Legitimate information needs can be immediately met with simpler technologies while demand and an information culture are built up to justify the same infrastructure being enjoyed by urban areas with greater population density and disposable income. The Evidence The proliferation of UNDP-supported PFNet email stations using packet radio technology in the Solomon Islands as a way to enhance the
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Bringing Connectivity to Under-Served Communities
Aaron Sundsmo's call for low-cost, low-bandwidth email technology is exactly what VITA pushed for many years through the low orbiting satellite store-and-forward email system designed for remote areas. We had wonderful demos using this technology, but, sadly, the technology could not be commercialized on a for-profit basis. Efforts continue, however, on a "humanitarian" basis. For probably $100K or less, replicable ground segment (ground-based terminals) could be tweaked and field tested (major development has already occurred). For the space segment (satellites) we would either have to go "piggy-back" on someone else's satellites (using the UK-based Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd proven platform) or, if an underwriter could be found for about $3 million, launch a dedicated satellite. If anybody would like more info on this or would like to offer suggestions, please write me offline (and I will be happy to collate/share responses with the network). Gary Gary Garriott ICT for Development Advisor Panama SURF - UNDP PO Box 6314, Zone 5 Panama City, Panama Tel. 507 265 8168/8153 Fax 507 265 8445 Aaron Sundsmo wrote: > I completely agree that there always needs to be a feedback loop built > into any project. What we are currently doing is using a hub and spokes > model where one site has a connection to the Internet (usually dial-up) > and can email feedback, but this has generally been very expensive and > unreliable. Where this is not available, First Voice is also using > telephone, snail mail or face-to-face communications as appropriate. > However, we are always looking for a low-cost low-bandwidth connection > primarily for email use that can be used in remote areas throughout > Africa and Asia and will not require excessive government licensing. If > anyone has any suggestions of these technologies I would greatly > appreciate it. 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] What Are the 'Right' Resources to Foster Professional Development?
I was happy to see this post advocating a return to the concept of "development of basic supporting infrastructure." Especially over the past couple of years I have been in countless meetings and seminars in which many learned participants have climbed all over each other to see who can be the fastest and the loudest to "go beyond" connectivity. The basic reality is that these fundamentals are not yet in place for huge numbers of people, including significant rural and urban populations in Latin America. My personal experience in rural development for more than a quarter century is that if people have the basic infrastructure and tools available, that their own innate creativity and entrepreneurial/survival skills will figure out how to use them. A few well-timed catalytic inputs by others (from the "north" or "south" or both) don't hurt either. In UNDP we have talked about a "development dynamic" in which a structured dialogue involving multiple aspects of ICTs takes place represented by all sectors of society and that this process, once set in motion, can lead to enlightened and sustainable national policies and strategies toward the information society <http://www.opt-init.org/>. I would submit that something quite similar can also happen at the local community level when innovative technologies and creative social inventions are combined as in <http://www.dos.cornell.edu/cresp/ecopartners/project.htm> and continue to be leveraged in a virtuous circle. But does anybody care? Why aren't such "local solutions" being clustered instead of stove-piped by development agencies and governments so as create a "basic supporting infrastructure"? If they don't do it, who will? The private sector? Gary Garriott E-governance Adviser LAC SURF - UNDP PO Box 6314, Zone 5 Panama City, Panama Tel. 507 265 8168/8153 Fax 507 265 8445 On June 17, 2004, Keith Birkhold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...If a technology can improve productivity or quality of life, if the > infrastructure is there to support the new technology, if the people > with the need have the money or financing for the initial investment, > and if those people have some exposure to the technology so that they > can see how it will improve their situation, then you are correct - they > will adapt the new technology. > ...snip... > > Development of basic supporting infrastructure is how I have seen the > most dramatic tranformation take place. > ...snip... > > I would propose that changes can be made in other countries by finding > local solutions for basic supporting infrastructure as well. Once that > foundation is in place, then information networks, economies, etc... > will evolve. 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] What Do We Mean By "Poor"?
the energy and take the risk of using technology to find this region wherever we are working (and doing it over and over again, however imperfectly), ICTs as significant poverty-busting tools are a lost cause. Gary Garriott (Former) E-governance Adviser LAC SURF - UNDP PO Box 6314, Zone 5 Panama City, Panama Tel. 507 265 8168/8153 Fax 507 265 8445 New email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide 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 Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html>
Re: [GKD] Nigeria: Silicon Valley Transplant
Dear Colleagues, I have big concerns about using Rostow's five stages of development as the base paradigm for this discussion (the original title of his work was "The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto" so it is clear where his politics lay). Many authors refuted his theories in the sixties and seventies (see for example Anthony Galt and Larry Smith, Models and the Study of Social Change, 1976). The final "stage" is supposed to be the "age of high mass-consumption" which hardly fits the reality of what is happening in the world today, as "developing" societies become less equal and maldistribution of resources increases, not diminishes. And yet the "stages" mentality lives on. This is evident in the all-or-nothing perspectives on availability and access to ICTs and Internet. Either you make broadband available to neglected populations and areas or they get zilch (nothing). No one considers that there is and has been for many years a range of gap-filling "intermediate technologies" (such as email via HF or VHF radio) that could provide, over time, a platform for creating the higher order "critical mass" because it can respond to real, existing needs now on a cost-effective basis. Such needs, for example, probably do not suggest unlimited web browsing as a priority response. The problem with uncritically "leap-frogging" over these is that, based on experience, the 'leapfrog' may truly not happen during our (or more importantly, users') lifetime, and, second, who is worried about who is doing the leapfrogging and who is being leapfrogged over? Even these mostly unsung, simpler technologies could be considered "disruptive" in the sense of uniquely addressing critical, existing needs first and then allowing for creative expansion into other topical areas and geographical locations. For me, one of the prime examples of this implementation approach is described at <http://www.peoplefirst.net.sb/general/pfnet.htm> (interesting to me is that "old-fashioned" HF radio-based email is described therein as "wireless," probably to claim kinship with the latest genre). There may even be ways to technologically "leapfrog" directly to Wi-Fi (and special applications, like VoIP telephony) as at <http://www.sas.cornell.edu/cresp/ecopartners/cluster/cluster.htm>, but in both instances a community-needs/community involvement approach is paramount, working in conjunction with the technology. Nevertheless, the discussion is timely as I have frequently wondered if the nearly fifty-year old ghost of Rostow's "stages" keeps us from recognizing the value of these experiences and expanding them to all the hinterlands, even if "take off" to high mass consumption will never be the end result. Gary Garriott (former ICTD LAC SURF Adviser) On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, Jeff Buderer wrote: > This is an interesting conversation and I see the points from both > sides. I think Ken is right in questioning the idea that you cannot as > Tim says "skip the first three stages and go straight to flying." > > I want to make an important distinction here between infrastructure > approach and readiness and mental/organizational capacity/readiness. > There are preconditions to "take off" such as outlined by former > Kennedy/Johnson advisor Walter Rostow: > <http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RcpyDDw_J4wJ:www.duke.edu/~jcd10/SO > C126/Devolop1.doc+stages+to+take-off&hl=en&lr=lang_en> > > I feel also that these preconditions to nation-state development > "critical mass" also apply today. Because what Rostow is talking about > applies not just to nation states but to all aspects of human > development. His stages to take-off are a generalized set of criteria > relating to developing momentum towards a critical mass within a > particular system towards rapid growth and replication. > ..snip... > The concept of disruptive technologies offers another new concept to the > mix. When disruptive technologies as well as approaches are applied > effectively as part of a comprehensive package of solutions to address > not only development, but world urgent issues like global warming, AIDS > and loss of biodiversity, we start to see that the old rules of > development don't always apply. ..snip... ***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/>
[GKD-DOTCOM] Citizen Service Centers
Colleagues, Beginning in the early-mid 90s, Brazil started implementing citizen service centers in various states. These are basically one stop shops where citizens can obtain information and transact business (birth certificates, labor declarations, drivers licenses, etc) with government entities at various levels, all in a single location. Starting in Bahia, these centers are now found throughout Brazil (at last count, 23 of 27 states). Mobile units housed in converted buses are also available in rural areas of Bahia and Sao Paulo States. A mixed-language (Spanish, English, Portuguese) compendium of information is available at <http://www.undp.org/surf-panama/egov/kresources.html>. Cursor down to Citizen Participation, Compendium-Citizen Service Centers. (For those who know me, I have completed my tour with UNDP and am now based in Washington DC with Winrock International.) Gary Garriott Innovation Program Officer, ICT for Rural Development Winrock International Voice: +703 525 9430, ext. 614 www.winrock.org 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 past messages, see: http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD] The $100 Computer is Key to India's Technology Fortunes
On Thursday, July 21, 2005, Tom Abeles wrote: > I think that it is "nice" to think about the $100 computer. But one > needs to remember that cell phones are ubiquitous and relatively low > cost. One post secondary education institution is developing curricula > using the cell phone as the device of choice for their students. Cells > that are both WiFi and work on the cellular bands are on the market, and > some are predicting the $2 cell phone which is "printed", realizing that > these can be built up with the proper inks, which are even being used to > make mechanical devices. Tom, Hwell, in my experience "we ain't there yet" when it comes to the "relatively low cost" of cellphones in developing countries. In fact, handset cost is one of the main reasons why they aren't even more available to the poor. Add other features like WiFi and they will probably be even more out of reach except for the richest of the poor and we're back where we started. $2 cell phones? Isn't that akin to all the promises we used to hear that telecommunications costs would fall to near zero? (Because they haven't; even those poor who can afford the handsets frequently opt for the very low rates that allow them to receive calls, but not make them.) (Just curious though if you are talking about "desktop factories" or "fab labs" to manufacture such phones at such costs. Who is doing it?) Best, Gary Gary Garriott Innovation Program Officer, ICT for Rural Development Winrock International Voice: +703 525 9430, ext. 614 www.winrock.org ***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/>
Re: [GKD] Markle/HP Recommendation to the DOT Force
The additional request for input on the DOT Force 'exchange' concept makes me nervous. I am getting nervous because here is another seemingly good idea which appears to have at its core yet another way to wring out every last drop of risk in trying to bring ICTs to bear on development. If we are still talking about 'the poor' and 'the poorest of the poor' (we are, aren't we?), then risk is part and parcel of the milieu into which are inserting ourselves. We're talking about 2.8 BILLION people who earn less than $2 a day. These folks know what risk is all about. It would be nice to hear somebody affiliated with the DOT Force stand up and say, "You know, we really don't know what is going to work where the poor live. There are a hundred reasons why a good idea won't work except where it is already working. There are also a hundred reasons why a bad idea here is a good idea somewhere else. The interplay of associative factors and chains of causation are too complicated to decipher. Our planning can only be wildly approximate at best. So we've just got to DO it and risk 20-25% of our efforts failing or being siphoned off by unscrupulous players. We will simply do whatever it takes to push good quality but low cost ICTs and combinations--hundreds and thousands of them--down to the lowest social units among the poor around the world and see what happens. Poor people are entrepreneurs too and can see opportunities--or otherwise they wouldn't have survived. All they need are the tools. We can provide the tools." Can it really be so difficult to identify which ICTs and ICT strategies will make a difference among the very poor? Mridula Murgai's recent posting suggests that learning ICTs happens very quickly even among the previously uninitiated when livelihood is involved or potentially involved. We've seen other examples of amazing learning breakthroughs when perceived 'critical' needs, as opposed to plain vanilla 'needs,' are present, such as at http://www.niit.com/Press%20Article/Article83.htm We know that the cost of entry is critical for the poor. Why isn't somebody figuring out how to make the $300 Brazilian computers an international marketing phenomenon? Then somebody try your hand at $300 (annual) Internet connectivity or somewhere in that neighborhood? Why aren't there about five thousand clones of Martha Davies running around thinking up innovative rural money making schemes using ICTs when she has already proven that it is possible? Maybe we don't attempt this because we're too focused on exchanges and gateways and national, even regional, 'policy-making'? Some, maybe many, of the Martha Davies' clones' ideas will fail. So what? We'll still learn. Action-research on actual efforts seems to me to be a better bet than the elaborate, top-heavy planning (read risk avoidance) that we seem to be constantly migrating towards. Once you've got dozens, hundreds, thousands of efforts fermenting and colliding and moving around, perhaps chaotically building grass roots political momentum,THEN it seems to me that policy-making has a chance. Another thing that made me nervous was the recent posting of GKD recommendations that was distributed at the GKP annual meeting. It is basically a list (in four areas) that goes on for four long pages. Someone once told me that a list is a proxy statement for "we don't know what we're doing" and to toss it out the window. Maybe it's time to forget lists and concentrate on a few, maybe one, 'critical needs' in every place to get things moving. If we can't come up with one, then move on till you find one. Isn't it time to take a few risks? (I am employed by VITA but this is definitely just a personal view and not a reflection of VITA views). Gary Garriott ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** 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.globalknowledge.org>
