tkt8763-01: The Digital Divide

[Christopher & Raydene Wolney <wolney@ebicom.net>]

I have looked at a couple of articles regarding the digital divide and am 
prepared to express some concerns, issues, beliefs, and feelings.

First, What is the digital divide. The Digital Beat at 
http://www.benton.org/DigitalBeat/db070899.html defines the divide as 
follows:

The contrast between affluent and low-income communities is apparent around 
the country. Poor communities are entering the Information Age far behind 
their wealthier neighbors. The technology gap is not simply a reflection of 
the choices made by an individual household; it reflects deeper problems -- 
like access to infrastructure. While public attention is often focused on 
whether individuals can get a service, an equally important problem is lack 
of adequate telecommunications facilities, a reality that makes an area 
less attractive for businesses investment. This can feed a spiral where the 
lack of investment at the community level leads to fewer economic 
opportunities for people who live there. As a result, the poverty in the 
neighborhood makes it a less inviting target for investment, further 
aggravating the problem.

Now many studies have been done that show the gap is widening. And while I 
believe the studies are correct, I have misgivings about the interpretation 
of the data. Let me explain in depth.

1. With regard to the widening gap The Digital Beat points out that the gap 
is widening despite falling computer prices and a booming economy. This 
interpretation is published from data collected at the very latest in the 
summer to fall of 1998. Most of the significant decreases in computer 
prices have occurred in 1999. Prior to 1998 the fall in computer prices was 
from $3000 to $1500. This amount is still out of the range of most 
individuals. However, the fall from $1500 to $500 this year represent a 
decrease that may very well bring technology to the less fortunate (or less 
motivated). In addition, this drop in prices may very well decrease the 
gap. It is my contention the infusion of any new product that would 
necessarily have wide market appeal (ie telephone, TV, oven, VCR, A/C in 
autos, etc) goes through a series of acceptance stages. Let me explain. The 
TV is in almost every home now. However, in the 1950s this was not the 
case. It first appeared in households of the affluent or the upper class. 
It then slowly made inroads into the upper middle class households. and 
then continuing its infusion into American society, it made its way into 
all middle class households. All of a sudden, we have a technology (in this 
case TV) gap. Slowly but surely as prices dropped to a price that was 
affordable to all, all households acquired TVs. In addition, once all have 
identified a necessity for its need, it is purchased.

2. The Digital Beat points out that many in lower class households say, 
"Internet access is too expensive." or "A computer is too expensive". 
Again, let's look at October 1999. PCs can now be "purchased" for free. How 
is that, a $400-$600 PC is loaded with rebates that allow the PC to be 
purchased for free as long as one signs up for Internet access for say 
three years with AOL. We go back to the statement, "Internet access is too 
expensive" I will point out that going to payless shoes and buying non-Nike 
tennis shoes and using the difference to have internet access is a viable 
alternative. In American society of keeping up with the Jones, everybody 
must have a "Old Navy" shirt that is now the rage or "Nike" or "Reebok" 
shoes. Well these brand names cost allot more than the KMart hiking boots I 
wear or the Payless Shoe Store casual shoes I just purchased. Oh by the 
way, the ones I purchased 6 years ago from KMart are still going strong. My 
point here is that priority is currently defining the digital divide more 
than availability of funds. I cannot believe that somebody who really wants 
internet access cannot afford a WEBTV for $100 and $10 a month internet 
access from Prodigy. Let me counter my point by arguing "Well I don't have 
that kind of money" Well I don't have $1500 of available funds to send my 
wife to paralegal school either, but we are tightening our belts and taking 
the temporary sacrifice for the future potential it brings. Once again, 
Reebok shoes are an expense. Payless shoes with internet access is an 
investment. I have a new baby and had no problem finding clothes for her 
first year of life at garage sales. My wife and I were able to pick up 
about 30 outfits for about $75. We outfitted her for her whole first year. 
Yes, while I would like to put her in $30 OshKosh outfits, I presently 
cannot afford that type of an expense with all our other investments.

3. I operate on the premise that generally speaking government involvement 
is obtrusive or restrictive to the free market. My local church I feel 
knows the need of its members much better than a bureaucracy in Washington 
D.C. I believe and have seen local schools getting better and more 
technology from local grants than from local property taxes that are 
controlled at the state level and many times influenced at the federal 
level. Where am I going with this? Let the free market decide how fast 
technology (or any new product) is infused into households. The fact is it 
is the Federal Communication Commissions policies that is preventing a 
faster adoption of cable modems into households. It is the Federal Trade 
Commission that is currently debating whether ATT should be able to operate 
Media One Cable which has the potential to significanly decrease the cost 
of internet access. It is government involvement that generally keeps 
prices arbitrarily high or prevent the rapid infusion of technology. 
E-commerce is growing by leaps and bounds. It is expected to increase 
10-fold this Christmas (10 fold, that is 1000% in one year, Wow!). Why is 
this happening? Among other reasons, it is because government has decided 
to keep the internet "free" until I believe 2002.

4. Now I will tender my apparent anarchist remarks. This is not to say that 
I believe or would like the downfall of all government. I believe in a 
strong police force to protect its citizens. I believe in a strong 
transportation system to increase the mobility of a society. I believe in 
investment in NASA because there is allot more resources out there than 
just on this tiny rock. It is government that provides the impetus and 
funding for these projects. However, government has in some respect created 
the "Digital Divide" with one Commission and will now seek to lessen the 
"Digital Divide" with another commission. The fact stands that individual 
motivation will cause the gap to lessen.

All individuals or households will have computers and/or internet access if 
it is deemed important by all individuals-government influence (for the 
good or bad) not withstanding.

Remarks and replies either in agreement or in disagreement are always 
welcomed and encouraged. These are just my thoughts. THe neat thing about a 
group is we tend to come up with the best ideas when we get input from a 
group.

Chris Wolney

Shoot, Move, and Communicate
Armor, The Combat Arm of Decision!

******* TKT 8763 Seminar in Planning for Instructional Technology  *******
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, e-mail to "majordomo@msstate.edu"
   with the message "subscribe tkt8763-01" or "unsubscribe tkt8763-01".
       Subscribers may post messages to "tkt8763-01@msstate.edu".