By Jorge Bossio M.
What you think when hear about “digital divide”? computers? Internet? Cable and wires? Most people think about those kind of things when talking about digital divide.
But, if the main issue of the ‘digital divide’ is the gap between the people who have and who have-not computer or internet … why is it so important for governments and policy makers? Why are they concerned? Why aren’t they concern about the gap between those who have and who don´t have a DVD, a house or a car? Is there a car divide? A Ferrari divide?
If the objective is to illustrate the difference between rich and poor people, there are a lot of more important issues like heath, education or even food security and hunger. Why are governments now talking about differences in computer ownership instead of talking about such other important issues? It is a crazy thing, don´t you think?
In the policy sphere the term ‘digital divide’ is most frequently used to describe unequal ICT access patterns across nations. Occasionally, analysts use the term ‘digital divide’ to describe unequal ICT access patterns within countries — mainly the divide between rural and urban areas.
That definition is broader than the former one. It shows the importance of ACCESS to technology instead of OWNERSHIP of technology.
That makes things easier for policymakers, so the digital divide is the “difference between people who have and who don’t have access to ICTs”.
Ok, but, I’m still not comfortable with that … why do people need to access ICT? Is that so important … I mean … is it really important?
In Peru there are barely 6 million Internet users, most of them accessing through internet cafés (we call them “cabinas”). There are cabinas in all the main cities and even in rural towns and they provide internet access services for the public for only 1 sol per hour.
I don´t really know if everybody has a sol to spend on that, but I think it is a very little amount of money for an hour of “something”. I mean, an hour of cinema is about 6 or 7 soles, an hour of fútbol is about 15 soles, an hour of almost anything is more than one sol.
Lima is a city with 9 million people. Almost every person in Lima lives or works near a cabina … so, in general terms, every person in this 9-million-inhabitant city has access to the Internet … every person who lives in urban areas in Perú lives or works near a cabina, that is 60% of Peru’s total population … if 60% of our population has access to ICT … Why are we concerned about digital divide? Isn´t that problem solved?
Even if 70-80% of the population had "access" to ICT? … the problem would be still there, the problem wouldn´t be solved, because there’s a missing link between ICT access and effective use, the use that makes the miracle, that generates productivity and welfare.
But, if the main issue of the ‘digital divide’ is the gap between the people who have and who have-not computer or internet … why is it so important for governments and policy makers? Why are they concerned? Why aren’t they concern about the gap between those who have and who don´t have a DVD, a house or a car? Is there a car divide? A Ferrari divide?
If the objective is to illustrate the difference between rich and poor people, there are a lot of more important issues like heath, education or even food security and hunger. Why are governments now talking about differences in computer ownership instead of talking about such other important issues? It is a crazy thing, don´t you think?
In the policy sphere the term ‘digital divide’ is most frequently used to describe unequal ICT access patterns across nations. Occasionally, analysts use the term ‘digital divide’ to describe unequal ICT access patterns within countries — mainly the divide between rural and urban areas.
That definition is broader than the former one. It shows the importance of ACCESS to technology instead of OWNERSHIP of technology.
That makes things easier for policymakers, so the digital divide is the “difference between people who have and who don’t have access to ICTs”.
Ok, but, I’m still not comfortable with that … why do people need to access ICT? Is that so important … I mean … is it really important?
In Peru there are barely 6 million Internet users, most of them accessing through internet cafés (we call them “cabinas”). There are cabinas in all the main cities and even in rural towns and they provide internet access services for the public for only 1 sol per hour.
I don´t really know if everybody has a sol to spend on that, but I think it is a very little amount of money for an hour of “something”. I mean, an hour of cinema is about 6 or 7 soles, an hour of fútbol is about 15 soles, an hour of almost anything is more than one sol.
Lima is a city with 9 million people. Almost every person in Lima lives or works near a cabina … so, in general terms, every person in this 9-million-inhabitant city has access to the Internet … every person who lives in urban areas in Perú lives or works near a cabina, that is 60% of Peru’s total population … if 60% of our population has access to ICT … Why are we concerned about digital divide? Isn´t that problem solved?
Even if 70-80% of the population had "access" to ICT? … the problem would be still there, the problem wouldn´t be solved, because there’s a missing link between ICT access and effective use, the use that makes the miracle, that generates productivity and welfare.
If we don´t know where the link is, there´s a good reason to feel afraid.
The link is people, the link is knowledge, the link is how people could use ICT to improve their lives, to do things better and to do better things. People, specially poor and poorly educated people, needs the capacity to take advantage of ICT, the capacity to use ICT in a way that makes sense for their lives. Not only do we need “technology access” for technology, but we need technology access for people, giving them the opportunity to change their lives and to change their world.
That’s the digital divide we have to deal with, that´s why we have to be concerned about it.
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario