<P>Dear Sasha</P>
<P>After the failed "Internet Bonanza" (just five years ago), the Economist -who was one of its its most zealous promoters- invent the "mobile dream" for solving the digital divide. In fact, not a surprise for insiders of the industry who keep cool !</P>
<P>But when, among other dubious assertions, the Economist writes that "Mobile phones do not rely on a permanent electricity supply" then we are six years back when other such "key assumptions" leaded to the biggest financial crash since 1929. .</P>
<P>This is to say that it would be time waisting for us to question such a neoliberal journalistic crap..</P>
<P>Perhaps we just ask them how their handy works with an empty battery. </P>
<P>Jean-Louis Fullsack</P>
<P>CSDPTT<BR></P><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid">> Message du 13/03/05 16:59<BR>> De : "Sasha Costanza-Chock" <SCHOCK@RISEUP.NET><BR>> A : "wsis" <ALT.WSIS@LISTS.RISEUP.NET>, plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> Copie à : <BR>> Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] The Economist on the 'real digital divide'<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Anyone have time write a good response to this? In fact they would <BR>> probably publish a thoughtful response letter.<BR>> <BR>> sasha<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> <BR>> The real digital divide<BR>> Mar 10th 2005<BR>> From The Economist print edition<BR>> <HTTP: displaystory.cfm?Story_ID="3742817" printedition economist.com><BR>> <BR>> Encouraging the spread of mobile phones is the most sensible and<BR>> effective response to the digital divide<BR>> <BR>> IT WAS an idea born in those far-off days of the internet bubble: the<BR>> worry that as people in the rich world embraced new computing and<BR>> communications technologies, people in the poor world would be left<BR>> stranded on the wrong side of a ?digital divide?. Five years after the<BR>> technology bubble burst, many ideas from the time?that ?eyeballs? matter<BR>> more than profits or that internet traffic was doubling every 100<BR>> days?have been sensibly shelved. But the idea of the digital divide<BR>> persists. On March 14th, after years of debate, the United Nations will<BR>> launch a ?Digital Solidarity Fund? to finance projects that address ?the<BR>> uneven distribution and use of new information and communication<BR>> technologies? and ?enable excluded people and countries to enter the new<BR>> era of the information society?. Yet the debate over the digital divide<BR>> is founded on a myth?that plugging poor countries into the internet will<BR>> help them to become rich rapidly.<BR>> <BR>> The lure of magic<BR>> <BR>> This is highly unlikely, because the digital divide is not a problem in<BR>> itself, but a symptom of deeper, more important divides: of income,<BR>> development and literacy. Fewer people in poor countries than in rich<BR>> ones own computers and have access to the internet simply because they<BR>> are too poor, are illiterate, or have other more pressing concerns, such<BR>> as food, health care and security. So even if it were possible to wave a<BR>> magic wand and cause a computer to appear in every household on earth,<BR>> it would not achieve very much: a computer is not useful if you have no<BR>> food or electricity and cannot read.<BR>> <BR>> Yet such wand-waving?through the construction of specific local<BR>> infrastructure projects such as rural telecentres?is just the sort of<BR>> thing for which the UN's new fund is intended. How the fund will be<BR>> financed and managed will be discussed at a meeting in September. One<BR>> popular proposal is that technology firms operating in poor countries be<BR>> encouraged to donate 1% of their profits to the fund, in return for<BR>> which they will be able to display a ?Digital Solidarity? logo. (Anyone<BR>> worried about corrupt officials creaming off money will be heartened to<BR>> hear that a system of inspections has been proposed.)<BR>> <BR>> This sort of thing is the wrong way to go about addressing the<BR>> inequality in access to digital technologies: it is treating the<BR>> symptoms, rather than the underlying causes. The benefits of building<BR>> rural computing centres, for example, are unclear (see the article in<BR>> our Technology Quarterly in this issue). Rather than trying to close the<BR>> divide for the sake of it, the more sensible goal is to determine how<BR>> best to use technology to promote bottom-up development. And the answer<BR>> to that question turns out to be remarkably clear: by promoting the<BR>> spread not of PCs and the internet, but of mobile phones.<BR>> <BR>> Plenty of evidence suggests that the mobile phone is the technology with<BR>> the greatest impact on development. A new paper finds that mobile phones<BR>> raise long-term growth rates, that their impact is twice as big in<BR>> developing nations as in developed ones, and that an extra ten phones<BR>> per 100 people in a typical developing country increases GDP growth by<BR>> 0.6 percentage points (see article).<BR>> <BR>> And when it comes to mobile phones, there is no need for intervention or<BR>> funding from the UN: even the world's poorest people are already rushing<BR>> to embrace mobile phones, because their economic benefits are so<BR>> apparent. Mobile phones do not rely on a permanent electricity supply<BR>> and can be used by people who cannot read or write.<BR>> <BR>> Phones are widely shared and rented out by the call, for example by the<BR>> ?telephone ladies? found in Bangladeshi villages. Farmers and fishermen<BR>> use mobile phones to call several markets and work out where they can<BR>> get the best price for their produce. Small businesses use them to shop<BR>> around for supplies. Mobile phones are used to make cashless payments in<BR>> Zambia and several other African countries. Even though the number of<BR>> phones per 100 people in poor countries is much lower than in the<BR>> developed world, they can have a dramatic impact: reducing transaction<BR>> costs, broadening trade networks and reducing the need to travel, which<BR>> is of particular value for people looking for work. Little wonder that<BR>> people in poor countries spend a larger proportion of their income on<BR>> telecommunications than those in rich ones.<BR>> <BR>> The digital divide that really matters, then, is between those with<BR>> access to a mobile network and those without. The good news is that the<BR>> gap is closing fast. The UN has set a goal of 50% access by 2015, but a<BR>> new report from the World Bank notes that 77% of the world's population<BR>> already lives within range of a mobile network.<BR>> <BR>> And yet more can be done to promote the diffusion of mobile phones.<BR>> Instead of messing around with telecentres and infrastructure projects<BR>> of dubious merit, the best thing governments in the developing world can<BR>> do is to liberalise their telecoms markets, doing away with lumbering<BR>> state monopolies and encouraging competition. History shows that the<BR>> earlier competition is introduced, the faster mobile phones start to<BR>> spread. Consider the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia, for<BR>> example. Both have average annual incomes of a mere $100 per person, but<BR>> the number of phones per 100 people is two in the former (where there<BR>> are six mobile networks), and 0.13 in the latter (where there is only one).<BR>> <BR>> Let a thousand networks bloom<BR>> <BR>> According to the World Bank, the private sector invested $230 billion in<BR>> telecommunications infrastructure in the developing world between 1993<BR>> and 2003?and countries with well-regulated competitive markets have seen<BR>> the greatest investment. Several firms, such as Orascom Telecom (see<BR>> article) and Vodacom, specialise in providing mobile access in<BR>> developing countries. Handset-makers, meanwhile, are racing to develop<BR>> cheap handsets for new markets in the developing world. Rather than<BR>> trying to close the digital divide through top-down IT infrastructure<BR>> projects, governments in the developing world should open their telecoms<BR>> markets. Then firms and customers, on their own and even in the poorest<BR>> countries, will close the divide themselves.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> ___________________<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Plenary mailing list<BR>> Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>