Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Refcon Standard]

Dear Colleagues,

I thought the following news report from a leading consulting firm would
be interesting and very instructive.  As precaution I include an
explanation of its meaning, which follows.

1) Higher cost and lower quality cable modem and PSTN services will
continue to rule broadband for a very long time due the very slow
technology roll-out for wireless services.

2) Information that is now free, called basic content, will soon be
provided only for a fee.  This will not create a great number of
independent applications providers, but will raise user-cost.

3) Medium bandwidth (2.5G) is sufficient in quality and services for the
majority of communication-forms required by users.

4) Content innovation and quantity, often available through
revenue-sharing agreements, will continue to be low until there is an
increase in users, as opposed to an increase in infrastructure or
infrastructure quality.  However, the vicious cycle of charging for
service and content, creating high user-cost, will continue to prevent
widespread adoption throughout most of the world.

5) The small number of very large infrastructure owners, oligopolies,
will continue to own and control the application platforms and
applications, including billing mechanisms, that reside on their
infastructures, further reducing content innovation. This will also
provide a non-competitive pricing structure for content that raises
overall costs. There will be non-separable grouping of content, further
raising the minimum charge.  There will be unrestrained
cross-subsidization between services aimed at businesses and individual
(home) users.

6) The limited number of networks will be subject to potential
catastrophic disruption of all communication-forms.

NEWSBYTES

Making a mistake and learning from it is a sign of intelligence, but
making the same mistake twice is a sure sign of incompetence, said John
Strand, head of wireless telecom consulting firm Strand Consult.

Strand was talking about his firm's new report on third-generation (3G)
networks, which he says are unlikely to succeed if the second-generation
(2G) carriers in Europe continue their plans for advanced 2.5G services.

The problem, Strand said, is that after shooting themselves in the foot
by launching mobile Internet services on their global system for mobile
communications (GSM) networks over the last few years, carriers are
doing it again with general packet radio services (GPRS). General packet
services provide modem speeds over mobile-phone networks.

By launching high-speed mobile Internet services on their 2G networks,
Strand says would-be 3G operators effectively are committing suicide.
"Now they're talking about charging for 3G content, when they're still
giving basic content away for nothing on their 2G networks," he said.

"Why should users migrate up to 3G and start paying for their content,
when they're getting it for free on their current wireless handsets?,"
he added.

Strand says that most 2G operators in Europe have not implemented
revenue-sharing models for mobile Internet, nor are they likely to do so
in the near future.

"Many experts have been holding up the NTT DoCoMo content revenue -
sharing agreements as a viable business model for 3G services. NTT
DoCoMo's content business model is actually pretty poor, so it's just
not viable for 3G services," he said.

Strand Consults' report, entitled "Show Me The Money," which was
published today in Scandinavia, will be released in an English language
version by Dec. 21.

Strand Consult's Web site is at 


Colleagues, I think Mr. Strands for comments, in the first paragraph,
pretty well sums up our mistakes too. When we push telecenters we help
others as we help ourselves.  However, in failing to insist that the
more than adequate funding is not directed to providing universal access
to basic IP communications, basic applications, we lay the foundation
for the institutionalization of the digital divide.  Our direction in IP
communications is little different than that earlier with telephony, the
reason we had a great monopolies requiring breakup, and government had
to establish through taxation and legislative regulation the universal
service fund.

Herein is the reason I contend our efforts, and government policy, now
proceeds in the absolute most expensive method to create communications
infrastructure in the history of the world.  It's as if we learned
nothing from the first time around.  We WILL pay for this through more
legislation and regulatory control, less innovation and choice, higher
subsidies and taxes, etc.

I do not advocate a government owned or socialist style infrastructure. 
I do not call for destruction of the incumbent infrastructure owners.  I
am only explaining there needs be several different type of webs running
on the Internet to serve differing constituencies.  To achieve highest
quality, and lowest user-cost, 

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Karin Delgadillo]

At 03:48 13/12/2001 -0800, Refcon Standard wrote:
> I absolutely loved your post...until you brought up the need for
> telecenters.  They are based on the oldest extant ICT available, and
> very costly in too many ways to list. In fact, it could fill a
> book...which by the way I wrote. The book uses Mexico's current federal
> e-Mexico initiative in example. I'd be happy to send it as an MS Word
> attachment to anyone interested. We were the first nationwide
> initiative accepted by the WRI.
 
 the Latin American and the Caribbean Network of
telecentres has been collecting stories on how the community are using
the telecentres and the challenges that the telecentres are facing,
their  problems, success and lessons learned among other things. All
this information you can find in the above url. We also are doing
research of the state of the art of the telecentres in the region. This
research will be available in the next two months and we hope it will be
published, if everything goes ok.

Peter Burgess wrote:
> > But we are also very clear about the need for the telecenter to be
> > worthwhile for the community. Does the telecenter have the potential to
> > do something of value for the community. This is absolutely critical,
> > and value is not what  ATCnet might think as the promoter of the
> > telecenter, but what the community thinks as the user of the telecenter.

Peter, Chasquinet works on telecentres and our vision is not top down
level, our vision is to be facilitators, to know  and do an asssesment
of the community needs as a starting point and how the telecentre can be
a tool to support and attend the community needs among other tools. We
develop the concept of the telecentre together with the community, the
vision and the mission. My experience is that poor and marginal
communities appropriate of ICT's when they are going thorough crisis and
this crisis needs to be sorted out. Examples to illustrate this
experiences you can find in the online resource centre that we have in
 Hope this resources
will help in the reflection of your concept of telecentres. I apologize
for the spanglish,

All the best,

karin



***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Michel J. Menou]

About the "cost" of bridging the digital divide, I'd be interested to
know the cost of running the G8 Dotforce, World Summit of the
Information Society, UN ICT Task Force and other "high level"
consultations. A cost/benefit analysis of these endeavours, from the
perspective of the intended beneficiaries, the unconnected poors, would
perhaps be enlightening. 


Michel Menou



***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Refcon Standard]

I absolutely loved your post...until you brought up the need for
telecenters.  They are based on the oldest extant ICT available, and
very costly in too many ways to list. In fact, it could fill a
book...which by the way I wrote. The book uses Mexico's current federal
e-Mexico initiative in example. I'd be happy to send it as an MS Word
attachment to anyone interested. We were the first nationwide
initiative accepted by the WRI.

Alan Levy
Mexico, D.F.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Peter Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> The ATCnet mindset is clear. Telecenters need to be established as fast
> as possible. They should be as low cost as it is possible to establish
> them, and provide the products and services that are needed and priority
> for the community. In our work we are very clear about how costs must be
> minimised so that the products and services are affordable. And we are
> also very clear about the role that technology plays and the role that
> people play, and the costs of these different elements. We are also very
> clear about the need for a low cost of capital.
> 
> But we are also very clear about the need for the telecenter to be
> worthwhile for the community. Does the telecenter have the potential to
> do something of value for the community. This is absolutely critical,
> and value is not what  ATCnet might think as the promoter of the
> telecenter, but what the community thinks as the user of the telecenter.





***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Hakikur Rahman]

Vikas Nath has raised an extremely pertinent issue here. The COST
certainly is and will be tremendous at the beginning. But, working in
modular form and segmenting the operational phase, it could be really an
asset for the global community, especially for the communities of the
developing world.

APC  has several methodical studies and reports in their
site giving insight thoughts on designing, implementing and maintaining
remote tele-centres at cost and sustainable basis.

Hope this will help.

Regards.
Hakik.

PS. If you want I can provide with the links.


At 04:12 PM 12/4/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Vikas Nath wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if there are figures, literature, anecdotes or
> > case-studies available on the COST of bridging the global digital
> > divide.
> >
> > It will be interesting to estimate, how much will it require to bring
> > Basic Connectivity to all.
>
>
> Just who cares for such numbers, pray tell? Is this for the sake of
> creating a number so it gets thrown around everywhere for ten years
> until someone else comes up with another one?



Engr. Hakikur Rahman, PhD.
Project Coordinator
SDNP Bangladesh.
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.sdnbd.org,  http://www.hakik.org




***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Profitinafrica]

Dear Participants,

The ATCnet view regarding the cost of bridging the digital divide may be
at odds with some of the participants in this group, and indeed many of
the experts in the development community.

First of all, cost is of vital importance because for an equal amount of
output or outcome, a lower cost input is better than a higher cost
input. The development community has argued that cost is not important
and the net result over a period of decades is very high cost
development with lower and lower expectations about outputs and
outcomes .. until eventually we have ended up with a development
systems that hardly works at all. If resources are scarce, as they
always are, then it is essential to think in terms of costs.

By ridiculing cost control and making it irrelevant in the field of
development has made it possible for a whole array of inappropriate
behavior to take place. By costs being a low priority in analysis and
oversight review, corrective action has not taken place, and the result
of failed development is now very evident.

But the participants who are saying that it does not really matter what
the aggregate cost is, that we should just get the job done, have a very
valid point. ATCnet's position is that at the project level low cost is
better than high cost for the same output and outcome. And we also say
that it is essential for progress to be made in tangible activities done
now as fast as  possible, rather than using scarce resources simply for
studies and analysis and studies and analysis ad infinitum.

The impression we have at the moment is that the development experts are
studying and measuring failed development more and more accurately as
the years go by, but are doing almost nothing to change the paradigm and
the performance of development.

The ATCnet mindset is clear. Telecenters need to be established as fast
as possible. They should be as low cost as it is possible to establish
them, and provide the products and services that are needed and
priority for the community. In our work we are very clear about how
costs must be minimised so that the products and services are
affordable. And we are also very clear about the role that technology
plays and the role that people play, and the costs of these different
elements. We are also very clear about the need for a low cost of
capital.

But we are also very clear about the need for the telecenter to be
worthwhile for the community. Does the telecenter have the potential to
do something of value for the community. This is absolutely critical,
and value is not what  ATCnet might think as the promoter of the
telecenter, but what the community thinks as the user of the
telecenter.

If anyone would like further clarification of the ATCnet argument
regarding cost and performance of telecenters, I would be pleased to go
into more detail off-list.

With regards

Peter Burgess

__
T. Peter Burgess
VP and CFO ATCnet
New York USA
Tel 212 772 6918 Fax 707 371 7805
website: www.atcnet.org 
email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]





***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Lishan Adam]

Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> ...if we can justify our ICT deployment at the micro-level, project by
> project, we don't need to worry about what it will cost. We will carry
> the costs project by project and - if we wish - aggregate those costs if
> someone is interested in the totals.

I entirely agree with his views and the project-by-project/
programme-by-programme approach. It is possible to come up with some
figures, say to bring access to rural areas, connect schools or
universities in a given district and aggregate the figures for entire
country or region. That needs good record management at
project/programme levels (which I found it practically difficult) and a
serious quantitative/qualitative analysis and some fieldwork. Even then
one tends to exclude important variables such as willingness to use a
given technology, leadership, etc.

My overall reaction to cost of digital divide was the same --"what is
the purpose of such a figure that quickly outdates?" just let us do the
job. I was calculating the cost of doubling tele-density in Africa
recently using ITU figures. It was difficult to come up with an
acceptable figure. The ITU averages and assumptions we used were
somewhat old. The world of tele-density has become a bit complicated
thanks to mobile phones that made it difficult to track number of
telephones in a given location at a given time.

One possible approach to understand the cost of digital divide is to ask
communities that the digital inclusion intends to serve. "How much will
it cost you to bridge your digital divide?" Imagine walking down the
streets of  Nairobi or Dakar and asking that question! The response
would include "who  are you?" "I have something else to do!", "come
tomorrow!", "I will ask...  and tell you" "I do not know what you are
talking about!" The contention is  that many have little to do with my
'digital divide', other millions have entirely different priorities,
others work within extended space and time (tomorrow) not in
capital/monetary or cost terms, other have choice to remain organic not
ready to go digital.

I concur with previous postings that we need to go beyond figures.
Figures mask realities. It was argued on this list that digital divide
itself is overestimated (in the sharing culture cases--where one
computer is shared among five or six in a research lab of an African
university, or where a boy from rural village in Ghana travels 10 or so
miles to Kumasi to collect printed electronic messages for the village
elders). In other cases it is  underestimated (where the figure shows
that tele/net density is high but the  actual use is not that great). I
have been looking for some serious work that goes beyond those figures
for sometime. I was unable to find except those by Castells and a few
papers by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development
. Are there any other
sources?

Thanks.

Lishan




***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[David BabingtonSmith]

Criticism of western consultants

Critics miss the point. Fee rates for doing digital divide consulting
work are actually low by western commercial standards. Try calling a big
six consulting firm like KPMG or a strategy firm like Mckinsey and ask
them to quote for the same job!

Does this mean digital divide consultants accept the work as they can't
get anything better, or because they are motivated by a desire to help
the disadvantaged and are therefore willing to take lower pay?

I would encourage southern consultants to try and turn the tables and
bid for digital divide consulting work in the UK or USA! Lets see some
real fair trade and settle the argument in the market place!!!

PS - Wire The World is seeking opportunities for southern consultants to
do exactly this!!!

David Babington-Smith
Wire The World




***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Ndesai]

Sam:

You took me one step forward for sure, I don't know about one step
backward. (Or is it the other way around?;-))

I agree almost entirely with what you say. The key consideration is just
what you have posed, "If we ask how might we use computers to increase
the eductional achievements of the poor, a question where the answer
might be to put them in telecentres where groups of local teachers are
brought together for skills training.. " I was of course being facetious
in my response to Vikas, the main point being "You need to worry about
electricity and connectivity first, and you also need to consider what
the people want to, and are able to, get when you bridge what you think
is being bridged.. Why bother about some large number?" (Ok, I do often
ask for this kind of 'large numbers' just to get some handle on the
scale of the problem, but it makes sense only when the problem is
well-defined; here, the issue I had with Vikas was, 'What's the problem
you are trying to solve?')

I also tend to agree - though this is something to be tried and proved -
that "if we can justify our ICT deployment at the micro-level, project
by project, we don't need to worry about what it will cost." Personally,
I came to think about the ICT access issues in an at first skeptical and
then roundabout way when consulting (which is what I do at the Bank) on
a rural electrification project. It seemed to me that (a) ICT access is
one of the higher-value benefit of electricity access (whether by grid
or solar systems), especially to institutional customers (health and
educational facilities, for instance), and (b) use of ICTs not only
provides a quicker link to communications and knowledge, it saves on
transport costs, avoids reliance on some middlemen, and helps deliver a
large quantity - more to the point, timely - of information at a
fraction of the cost of the alternatives.

Just what does the 'digital divide' mean? What's the hope behind the
hype?

Nikhil




***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Alan G. Alegre]

Nice thread.

I agree 100% with Sam Lamfranco in his last post.

Even the so-called "digital divide" is becoming a contested term and a
"struggle for interpretation" is useful as it reveals ideological
underpinnings of the different proponents (at least most of the time).
(In any case, I think it is about time that people and institutions do
examine their ideological underpinnings when they talk about trying to
help bridge the "digital divide".)

Recent debates about the relevance statistical indicators of the
"digital divide" illustrates another facet of the emerging this term
(fast becoming an "ideological hatstand", i.e., a term which EVERYONE
hangs their hat on!).

For example: is teledensity an appropriate measure of the DD--i.e.,
therefore, "phones for all"? Are "PC penetration rates"  a useful
indicator when community access, or even multiple home users in a single
PC prevalent in Asian households? How can one actually measure
*relevant* internet access, when majority of urban youths in Asia log on
to the WWW simply for network gaming?

These I think are not easy questions, but can be starting points for a
more relevant discussion, even prior to costs.

What is really important IMHO is how disadvantaged communities
appropriate ICTs and the Internet to overcome socio-economic divides and
power differentials in their localities, countries, and in the whole
globe.

Al Alegre




***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Mikolajuk]

Further to Vikas's question on the cost of "bridging the global digital
divide" and comments from Pamela and Nikhil I would like to present a
concrete example of setting up 4 Multipurpose Community Telecentres in
Northern Mindanao . The total cost of the
project was about $200,000 USD plus in-kind contributions of village
communities. The issue is not the cost of technical equipment as
calculated by Nikhil. Not every household needs a computer. Village
centers would by quite enough for now. (As a TV set for the whole
village in the old days.) The main cost is the training (computer skills
development) and production of information materials relevant to people
who will work with computers. The connectivity is also not the most
important at the beginning, but computer literacy is. (As Pamela
mentioned there are many useful standalone applications). We must think
about the whole process of introducing the new technology and its cost
in the context of social, cultural and technical aspects .

I think that the discussion on the cost of bridging the digital divide
is much needed and we should also identify sources of financing.

I prefer to talk about digital unite and I have plenty of examples of
digital technology uniting not dividing people.

Zbig Mikolajuk




***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[John Lawrence]

To Nihil Desai...
you raise  interesting issues in your laconic treatment of the
numbers. which connect to Remigio Achia's zinging criticism of
expensive western consultants, in the following way not only do they
(we) come in with expense accounts and a marked reluctance to venture
forth from the eastern US seabord or national capitals in order to
articulate influential policy advice, but (they) we come in with a heavy
western 'numbers' bias, based on extensive graduate exposure to western
professors of statistics, theories of central tendency, and a form of
analytical mechanics which may perhaps turn out to be as limiting to
understanding human behaviour as Newtonian theories did to physics.
the issue of information as a public good has been thoughtfully adressed
(eg OXFAM ) and
technologies also, though tangentially, in the new UNDP Human
Development Report (e.g. p95, 96)...



***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Sam Lanfranco]

With a similar smile/smurk I want to take Nikhil one step forward and
one step backward at the same time.

It is worth recalling that the language of the Digital Divide sprang
into our vocabulary after the Group of Eight meeting in Japan counld not
reach agreement on their key agenda item, that being debt reduction for
heavily indebted poor countries. Like schooling fish following a crazed
leader the entire development  community re-set its compass to that new
navigational star.

This of course came as quite a shock to those of us who had been working
on the challenges of ICTs and Development for the previous two decades.
But, we had seen it before and there was no surprise. There is also
little surprise to realize how little serious reflection has taken place
with regard to what the digital divide means. Do we close it by closing
the gap, by bridging the gap, by what and why?

To keep this short and simple, consider the following. What is the cost
of closing the "transportation divide", the fact that some people have
access to  transportation and its benefits and that others do not. Does
this mean "Cars  for All?" Of course not. Does it mean "Bus Tokens for
All?" Of course not. What does it mean. It usually means what can be
done with transportation, as in intermediate instrument variable, to
improve the conditions of life for some  groups, usually the poor.

The same applies to the digital divide. Does it mean "Computers, Access
or Connectivity for All?" It shouldn't but for some it seems to. If we
measure success by access and connectivity we comit the mistake, well
recognized in medical research of confusing efficacy with efficiency.
They goal is to make  the lives of some (usually the poor) better. If we
try this by placing  computers in the schools where the poor are not
even students our efficacy may look great, and our costs will be high,
but our efficiency in terms of the  degree to which we attain our
ultimate goal will be low. If we ask how might we use computers to
increase the eductional achievements of the poor, a question where the
answer might be to put them in telecentres where groups of local
teachers are brought together for skills training, our costs are much
lower but our efficiency is much higher.

Just as "Cars for All" doesn't make sense to solve the problems of
physical distance and the poor, anything that confuses efficacy with
efficiency in the  deployment of ICT for development doesn't make sense.
It also costs a lot more. Lastly, if we can justify our ICT deployment
at the micro-level, project by  project, we don't need to worry about
what it will cost. We will carry the costs project by project and - if we
wish - aggregate those costs if someone is interested in the totals. On
the other hand, if we estimate costs at some macro level and ignore the
micro-level evaluations, costs will always be greater than benefits,
unless of course you are the seller of equipment, or of consulting 
services, to the projects in question.


Sam Lanfranco
Distributed Knowledge
York University
  



***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:

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Pamela McLean]

Vikas Nath raised the question of the cost of bridging the digital
divide, and bringing Basic Connectivity to all.

I wanted to respond, then realised the complexity of trying to do so
because we use these various terms 'as if we all understand them and
agree what they mean'. But we may well be using them to describe very
different specific situations.

Thinking through what the digital divide and connectivity means to our
project led to the description and thoughts below.

For example, we describe our Oke-Ogun Community Development project
(which has a vision to overcome some of the disadvantages faced by the
communities in this rural area) as a digital bridge project. Our focus
is on the disadvantages of being on the unconnected side of the digital
divide, which result in being left out of the benefits of the
information age. Our project is an attempt to overcome 'information
underload' in rural areas which contributes to population drift (and
brain drain) to the urban areas and abroad. Our project is about trying
to bring information to the people (information designed to offer
parallel opportunities for education/training and for
employment/sustainable development) instead of the people moving away to
better sources of information.

We are trying to connect the existing community communication systems to
additional sources of information. We are trying to build an ICT system
'on top of the existing community systems' to make the process of
information exchange efficient. We are starting with networks of people,
not ICT networks (because people and vision is what we do have, and
technology is what we don't have yet). Our present information delivery
and exchange is going further than the present ICT infrastructure. In
fact most of our project area is beyond the reach of the telephone
network, and so the people involved only have access to telephones when
they are in the urban areas, and direct web access is not a realistic
option. None the less the internet provides rich sources of information
for the project, via the UK, so, although the project area does not have
Direct Connectivity, we see ourselves as bridging the digital divide,
albeit in a small, gradual and at present low-tech way.

In the long term we look forward to upgrading our information exchange
system to include wireless connection by satellite to some of our key
locations in Oke-Ogun. Gradually we will move to greater digital
connectivity. The time scale will depend on a mixture of government
initiatives to improve infrastructure (as outlined in the Nigerian IT
policy strategy 'USE IT') and our own ability to attract funding. As and
when that connectivity happens we will offer public access telephones -
the Basic Connectivity that Vikas Nath describes.

Before we get full connectivity we expect people to be able to access
information at the key sites, but offline. We expect people to have
access to a mixture of printed resources and on-screen resources. The
key sites will become Community Digital Information Centres (CDICs).

This builds from what is happening now. At present for example the
Oke-Ogun Community Development Agenda 2000 Plus Committee has some
emails access, and physical deliveries of printed web pages. Only the UK
side of the project is on the connected side of the digital divide. The
next step must be to get full connectivity for the committee, so they
can serve the information needs of the project more effectively and
directly, in the same way that the UK connection presently serves the
information needs of the committee.

We expect to have key sites available for CDICs before we have
connectivity. It is no problem if we get computers for them before we
get infrastructure (overcoming problems of power supply and maintenance
will not be discussed here). As the key sites for information access
develop, their onscreen resources can be via computers, even if the
computers are not online. The information sources for the computers can
arrive physically, in batches. Emails, CDs and DVDs can be delivered at
appropriate intervals through the existing communication networks. As it
emerges which information is most sought after this will influence which
websites are downloaded to CDs (by the CDIC co-ordinating centre) and
how often they are updated. As a result people who are not connected
will be able to access web pages, and request further information, and
they will be able to feedback their own contributions. Most importantly
they will begin to get an idea of what is available for a connected
community and be able to influence how their community becomes connected
- as is happening with the committee.

That ends this description of the Oke-Ogun Community Development Agenda
2000 approach to overcoming the digital divide and how Direct
Connectivity fits in with it.

Pam McLean
CAWD UK Co-ordinator for Oke-Ogun Community Development Agenda 2000 Plus 
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
More details: www.cawd.info




***GKD is

Re: [GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Ndesai]

Vikas Nath wrote:

> I was wondering if there are figures, literature, anecdotes or
> case-studies available on the COST of bridging the global digital
> divide.
> 
> It will be interesting to estimate, how much  will it require to bring
> Basic Connectivity to all.


Just who cares for such numbers, pray tell? Is this for the sake of
creating a number so it gets thrown around everywhere for ten years
until someone else comes up with another one?

If so, here's my figure for "Basic Connectivity to All". About $3
trillion over ten years ("all in" costs, including hardware,
installation, service, usage), consisting of (a) capital costs of $1
trillion to provide electricity and teleconnectivity to some 400 million
households without electricity and 500 million households without
teleconnectivity at an average of $2,000 per household to have such
access to 'electrons' (with or without wires, and intermediated by other
waves) and (b) operating costs of about $200 billion a year for these
500 million households to use the electricity and connectivity
(electricity and telephony bills, but also leasing computing devices).
Current costs are high, but I have factored in some cost reduction in
both electricity and teleconnectivity, allowing for some growth in usage
over a decade.

Satisfied? Or show me I am wrong by more than a factor of two!

To put this in perspective, $3 trillion is perhaps about 7% of all
global investment in everything over a decade. If bridging the digital
divide improves productivity and employment enough, the investment would
pay for itself, no? Think someone would pay me $50k to write a paper on
how bridging the digital divide is a global public good? ;-)


Nikhil (with a slight smirk as usual)




***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:

[GKD] RFI: Cost of Bridging Digital Divide?

[Vikas Nath]

Dear Colleagues,

I was wondering if there are figures, literature, anecdotes or
case-studies available on the COST of bridging the global digital
divide.

It will be interesting to estimate, how much  will it require to bring
Basic Connectivity to all.

This basic connectivity could be in the form of providing individual
access to mainline telephones, providing telephones within a reasonable
distance, may be providing connectivity through wireless technology or
any other means.

Thanking you in advance,

Warm Regards,
Vikas Nath

Policy Analyst, UNDP

Inlaks Fellow, LSE, 2000-1
www.KnowNet.org
www.DigitalGovernance.org



***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: