Area 808

To the Editor, Economist

In response to: The Real Digital Divide. March 10th 2005

"The Real Digital Divide" correctly asserts that this divide is merely a
symptom of deeper, more important divides. However, the article has 2
serious flaws.

Firstly, it falls into the 'generalisation' trap. It assumes that
solutions that worked well in one context will necessarily work well
everywhere.

Mobile phones are NOT always the cheapest or best way to provide
telephony, especially to poor and rural populations. Newer and cheaper
technologies such as WiFi, WiMax, CorDECT and VOIP (voice over internet
protocol) could prove far more cost effective, and they have the added
advantage of providing data services such as internet. Furthermore,
sparsely populated rural regions are proving less attractive to mobile
providers, and the growth rate in network coverage (as distinct from
subscribers) is slowing down, long before it reaches many of the poorest
people.

Secondly, why does the author conclude from the undisputed value of mobile
telephony that other new technologies are superfluous in addressing
development challenges?

People living in the developed world's lives have been transformed by the
power of the internet in multiple dimensions: work, social connectivity,
banking, entertainment, political debate. They live in a context of
increasing access and efficiency. Why deny these benefits to developing
countries and the poor? Avoiding the infrastructure and capacity
development challenges of introducing these technologies to developing
countries is NOT an effective response to growing inequities.

Digital inclusion is not simply about access to computers or the internet,
it is about not being left behind when such far-reaching institutional
changes are revolutionizing every aspect of social and economic life.

Regarding regulatory approaches, it is now widely acknowledged, including
by the World Bank that the market alone is not sufficient, especially in
remote and rural areas and poorer populations. There is a major role for
investment and regulation in the public interest, in an environment that
is increasingly horizontally segmented between local access networks,
backbone providers, and service providers.

The need for universal service access funds is widely accepted. But
current thinking is now considering ways of providing wholesale bandwidth,
where a single provider, publicly-owned or in consortium, sells backbone
bandwidth cheaply and transparently to all. At local level,
community-owned networks already exist from Poland to Argentina -
following the lead of the USA where over 500 local rural telephony
cooperatives have flourished for decades and now provide broadband. The
point here is not to say that competition does not play a key role.
Rather, it is essential to pursue continuous and ongoing regulatory
innovation, and to remain open to all suitable solutions.

Exclusive solutions, be they technical or regulatory, are simply too
restrictive for the diversity of needs and environments.

(SGD.)
Association for Progressive Communications, Johannnesburg
Digital Divide Data, San Francisco
IT4Change, India
Bread For All, Lausanne
NEXUS Research, Dublin