Digital Divide

Digital Divide: What is it and why does it matter? It refers to the gap between those who benefit from digital technology and those who do not.

By Kristen Franks

The first truth is that the digitaldivide.org believes there are nine basic truths; we will be focusing on two of the truths, according to digitaldivide.org they assume the divide is widening, not narrowing, and at an ever-increasing rate.

The last truth, closing the digital divide involves using new technologies to formalize the ‘informal economy,’ thereby bringing the poor into established markets.

Referring back to the first truth, digitaldivide.org presupposes that the allure of consumerism is peaking the interest of the poorest individuals in low-socio-economic urban areas. In addition, that allure could be dangerous to those who venture out of the small village to find their way to commercialized technology, they may not have the financial mean to support themselves and may find themselves on the mean streets with out financial support to return home.

A tidbit to ingest the 80/20 theory. Upper to middle class have high quality Internet access to digital technology because 80% of the profit is generated by 20% of the most affluent.

Moreover, the reason additional capital for technology is not put into place for providing access to the poor is that - bottom line - profitability – there is no profit by providing access to the poor.

So…how do we change current market trends and behaviors?

According to digitaldivide.org it is a two-prong approach, direct and non-direct, the direct approach would be to gather business and government to change the incentives that shape digital markets. Which may lead to an indirect approach, theoretically it could team up the public sector with the private sector. The technological benefits would create a more advantageous coordination within the health care and education systems – and that would be a plus.

Decades ago a man, named Maslow* said that if a persons basic needs are not being met, secondary needs will not be considered or approached, by that individual.

*http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html

Now back to digitaldivide.org following along the same lines as Maslow, digitaldivide.org believes that closing the gap on the digital divide is not a top priority. Clean water and employment should be the top priorities. However, technological advancements would create a more conducive pathway towards cleaner water and more access to employment, green-eco friendly technology would serve the basic needs first, then secondary needs would follow; the two can work in conjunction to lesson the divide.

“Closing the divide is not a silver bullet for reducing poverty. But there is a much lower likelihood of large scale and sustainable poverty reduction without doing so.”

http://www.digitaldivide.org/dd/digitaldivide.html

It can be gathered according to digitaldivide.org that trends in commercialization and market forces are widening the gap. However, they also assume if the public and private sector work in juxtaposition that several needs can be met at once and that would provide for many basic needs being met, as well as, secondary needs, such as access to digital technology.

Now let us move on to another set of data with a different agenda. Let us see if in fact ymca.net has established similar conditions.

According to ymca.net access to information technology, benefits youths in a number of ways:

Increased self-esteem
Increased understanding of their own potential
Raised educational awareness
Higher ability to obtain employment
Increased motivation and ability to create their own businesses

The benefit for communities are immeasurable for if the youth of today are exposed to information technology and have proper digital access than that would in fact break down social barriers between disadvantaged youth and local businesses.

Information technology is a not only about employment and resource mobilization it can also integrate principles of civic engagement, community participation, and empowerment.

The ymca.net has proven itself over the years of its commitment and dedication to individuals whether from this country, Africa, or the many other countries the YMCA seems to encourage and promote. The YMCA is just another example on how the public sector can anticipate the needs and goals of a community, and put into place a directive that sees that those needs are being met.

Therefore, it would seem that the ymca.net and digitaldivide.org have one common theme, digital access and information technology can contribute to disadvantaged individuals and aid in lending a hand in developing communal relationships. It will also assist in promoting goodwill, which will also begin to bridge the gap between persons from affluence and those persons from moderate to those of low-socio-economic resources. Those processes will also support the theory that social fragmentation between the classes is also lessoned.

Let us take a look at what Arshad Mohammed of the Washington Post, assumes to be the case. Let us see if there is any correlation between what the Washington Post claims what has been theorized by digitaldivide.org and ymca.net.

Almost verbatim of what digitaldivide.org supposes, “The problem is there is not sufficient market incentive to serve the lowest-income part of our city…”

DC government has granted one company access to their IT contract with one (BIG) catch! Whoever wins the bid for digitizing Washington DC, has to provide access for impoverished neighborhoods. In addition, whichever company bids the lowest and offers access to the majority of low-income neighborhoods will win the bid, and will supply citywide technological support.

However, there seems to be contention from the private sector, they are reporting that, “it is unfair to force us to compete with networks that may be supported by a municipality.” Again, providing access to low-socio-economic populations is interfering with the private sectors profitability framework.

According to: http://www.broadbandinfo.com/high-speed-internet/deals/default.html
There is a different in the quality and price range for Broadband services.

Comcast® Broadband Offers and Deals: $100 Cash Back
Comcast High Speed Internet service for as low as $19.99 per month for the first 6 months and you get $100 cash back.

Road Runner High Speed Online™ is 100 times faster than dial-up.
$34.95 per month for 12 months*
Free modem
No contract necessary

Charter High-Speed® Internet Offers and Deals
Charter High-Speed® internet for $24.99 per month for six months!
$100 Cash Back.
Order your Charter Internet service today and get a free Motorola cable modem.
There are no contracts required with Charter!

Insight Communications Broadband Offers and Deals
Get 12 full months of Insight Broadband at a special rate of only $30 a month.
Get up to six Insight email addresses that you can access anywhere with Insight webmail.
No contracts needed with internet service plans.
Digital Home Phone Service Deals

It may not seem like a lot of money but according to the main Broadband services; Broadband can range from 19.99 to 30.00 a month just for Broadband. That may be a great deal of money for those who are already living at the poverty line or below. In addition, if a family of two only makes $14,570.00; they may not have the financial resources for Broadband services.

According to: http://www.atdn.org/access/poverty.html

The 48 Contiguous States and DC
Persons in family
Poverty guideline
1
$10,830
2
14,570
3
18,310
4
22,050
5
25,790
6
29,530
7
33,270
8
37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.


One side note even those who are promoting free access for information technology it is not high-speed broadband. However, it is not dial-up either. It is about ten times faster than dial-up but, by no means, can it be compared to high-speed access.

Accessibility to information technology is possible. However, the drawback is slower connections, as compared to their wealthier counterparts.

Now looking back at what digitaldivide.org, ymca.net, and now what the Washington Post supposes, “Proponents argue that bringing high-speed internet to low income groups can bring economic, educational, social benefits to people who would otherwise be deprived.”

Rey Ramsey - Chief Officer of a non-profit group called One Economy Corp, has also said it,
http://www.one-economy.com/press/report/archive/2008/06/19/oe-report-may-2008

“Information is King... What’s important today is having access to broadband at an affordable price.”

Which goes back to another quote from ymca.net, “Despite isolation and lack of opportunity, young people can be engaged through information technology in ways that transform their local reality into new opportunity.”

My conclusion would be that the three opinions postulate several common themes:

Everyone should be afforded effective, cost efficient, and availability to information technology and digital access.
Digital access can lead to a greater accessibility between low-socio-economic regions and those of more affluent to moderate means; which would allow for a re-connection between the classes, which also would promote more community participation amongst all class levels.
In addition, it would bridge the gap between those of financial disadvantage as compared with those who are not. It would also aid in the development for more advantages such as employment, business or educations opportunities.

Nevertheless, it would seem when comparing all three opinions one-draw backs seems to be clear – the private sector needs to inherit a more philanthropic attitude that would support low economic areas for the betterment of financially disadvantaged urban areas, rather than only seeing to their profit margins and shareholders dividends.

There also seems that there could be a ‘connect’ between profitability and philanthropy.

If big business would see that to promote and engage in affordability or free access to information technology it would enable a more perceptive technological employee – which in turn would support greater shares in their profitability margins.

So if anyone is in support of these main points in this podcast, please call, email, or write to your local State Representatives or Congress people and tell them that you feel everyone should have access to information technology, and for those in low-socio-economic area should be offered some form of free digital access.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Kristen Franks

George Orwell 1984

By, Kristen Franks


A brief look into “1984”

George Orwell 1984
New American Library, New York, NY, 1-128
First Printing by Signet Classic in July 1950

Winston Smith is just a run of the mill guy, a member of the ruling party in Oceania (former London). One of the party’s agenda is to create a new language, “Newspeak which omits anything odious or considered offensive to the party.”

Thought crimes equal death; Winston has opened the doorway to such a fate by writing his personal thoughts in a diary – which are forbidden. He is a low-level member of the ruling party and works in the Ministry of Truth re-inventing so-called facts to suit the party’s purpose.

One person brings sanity to Winston’s life; O’Brien a member of the Inner party whom Winston is convinced is a member of The Brotherhood (so he thought). Winston now has a beautiful woman in his life, and he is looking forward in meeting O’Brien and his hopes is that O’Brien will bring a purpose to his mundane life.

One fateful day, Winston does in fact get his chance to meet O’Brien. However, Mr. Charrinton the owner of the flat and O’Brien’s landlord, who is actually a spy for the thought police – turns him in. Needless to say, it does not look good for Winston, Julie, or O’Brien or was it good for O’Brien?

I will not give anymore of the plot away, it is an easy and great read, and I highly recommend 1984.

Themes of 1984

Totalitarianism (in 1949 Communism was still looked upon favorably ‘The Cold War’ was in its infancy).

Orwell supposed that if the West did not resist such conformity to government inclusion the scenarios he wrote in 1984 would come to reality.

Manipulation

Telescreens were in every citizen’s room, those machines aided in the support of mind control and that was a necessary tool for the party to keep the reigns on the people in Oceania. Big Brother is Always Watching You!!!

Control

It was the fear of every citizen that their own body’s involuntary reactions would give away their true intentions. A twitch of the eye and or a dismayed look could be construed as a blemish to the party’s character. Physical Jerks - a morning exercise was monitored by the telescreens. The Department of Historical Truths omits previous truths and re-submits current truths as the ultimate truth. So information is ever changing, if one tidbit of information is deemed offensive to the party it is rewritten in all types of written or visual media.

Language

The party omitted words that did not suit them. It seems that language and or the use or issue of it was a strong point in 1984. How replacing and modifying language can have long and detrimental effect for decades if not millennia to come.

Patterns

Doublethink – holding contradictory thoughts at the same time.

Urban Decay – In totalitarianism, the top only sees to their own needs, they offer very little to their constituency but demand everything. The few have much, the masses have very little.

Ideas

Big Brother – a person cannot do, say, think, go, wear, and feel without being watched by the party.

The place where there is no darkness, “a prison where the light is never turned off.”

Quote:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Who Controls the Past, Controls the Future
Who Controls the Present, Controls the Past

Genre: Negative Utopian, or dystopian fiction written in England in 1949.

One question haunted Winston. Why?
O’Brien’s answer: power for the sake of power.

SFReader.com Paul Kane review,

“The year – even the century – may have come and gone, but 1984 is about so much more than just a date. It’s about who we are, who we might be and who we definitely should not be.”

Privacilla.org (Pro-Technological Perspective)

“Orwell wrote 1984 to caution against the power of governments much more than to warn about the future of lost privacy. There is an inverse relationship between privacy and government power, of course, but it is excess government that creates lack of privacy, rather than the reverse.”