Public Internet Access Points

Por Juan Fernando Bossio

In relation to access, it is becoming a common solution and public policy to establish public access points to internet (Macadar and Reinhard 2002; Saravia 2003). However, several projects from international funding institutions have simply installed ‘rooms with computers’ without taking care of local necessities, organisations, and context in general (Davidziuk 2002). Telecentres are sometimes seen as just PIAPs, and in that sense private-owned cyber cafes should be included (Proenza 2001).



Colle and Roman found that ‘telecentres’ does not mean the same to everyone, but they underlined that telecentres have in common the objective to contribute with social development (1999), as is supported by the community telecentres movement (Delgadillo, Stoll et al. 2002; Gómez and Casadiego 2002; Stoll and Menou 2003). From that perspective, telecentres should therefore combine access to ICTs with a varied and flexible use, defined by the involved community (Assumpção, 2002). The telecentres could also bridge the gap between deployment context and design context, taking the role of intermediary and making ICTs usable by the poorest people (Heeks 2002). This intermediation would include creation and dissemination of knowledge or appropriate information, and development of local capabilities (Madon 2000).



Community telecentres

“Community telecentres represent an experiment in using digital technologies as tools for human development within a community. The stress here is on the social use and appropriation of the technological tools and the information that can be accessed through them, as part of a project for social change aimed at improving living conditions. Technology and connectivity are important but not sufficient conditions for the proper functioning of community telecentres, and the achievement of their development objectives.” (Delgadillo, Stoll et al. 2002: 8)



The community telecentres movement promotes community-driven projects, encouraging participation of different actors (Fors and Moreno 2002; Gómez and Casadiego 2002; Stoll and Menou 2003). This vision of telecentres understands that social impacts are more than simple income improvements, and include more organisational, political or psychological impacts.



Telecentre sustainability

One of the problems faced by telecentres through the world is their long-term sustainability. Following the ‘mainstream’ discourse of international agencies, sustainability is mostly conceptualised as just or mainly financial sustainability, leading to the affirmation that “the development impact of a telecentre is thus a very important consideration, even if it is a dimension that is distinct from sustainability” (Proenza 2001: 2). However, the literature also underlines that the telecentres’ ability to continue living (sustainability) includes social, political and technological in addition to financial (Delgadillo, Stoll et al. 2002; Stoll and Menou 2003).



Political sustainability refers to “the importance of securing a stable regulatory framework that will protect, promote and support community telecentres and their activities, with special attention to the specific needs of the poorest sectors” (Stoll and Menou 2003: 4). Technological sustainability refers to the need to ensure that telecentres would be able to update their technologies in future scenarios. Experience has shown that political, technical and social sustainability help to achieve financial sustainability, whilst the reverse has not been observed (Stoll and Menou 2003).



Toward Telecentre Social Sustainability

Here is argued that telecentres would be able to have social sustainability if they fit into the socio-cultural context of the community. This could be done through the participation of community from the beginning of the project, ensuring respect towards and promotion of local/traditional information systems, commitment of community based organisations (CBOs) and NGOs, understanding of local characteristics, consideration of differences within the communities (gender, culture, ageing), empowerment of marginalised groups, sharing goals with the community and empathy with local people (Delgadillo 2004). Social sustainability is achieved if people from the community feel empowered by the telecentre and assume it as a physical common[1], not just as an internet service point(Stoll and Menou 2003).

[1] Physical are the material manifestation of social commons (e.g. respect, solidarity) including places or assets for the common wealth as libraries, parks or hospitals. Being assets their value is more durable than services.

Extracto del documento Social sustainability of telecentres from the viewpoint of telecentre operators: a case study from Sao paulo, Brazil disponible en internet

.