[Reader-list] Digital Divide

[Monica Narula]

Following is a series of queries sent to Sarai by John MacGregor 
around the concept of the Digital Divide, and replies to them by some 
people at sarai. Makes for interesting reading, as the questions are 
very pertinent. (answers are in the sequence they reached my desktop!)

cheers
Monica

======================

I guess I'm zeroing in on Steve Jobs's recent statement that the 
digital divide is "just a new sticker we use to cover up a more 
important word: poverty. "I am living in America and you in 
Australia, and we are really doing quite nicely, thank you. We have 
great medicine and good roads and clean water. We invent terms like 
digital divide to distract us from the real problem that must be 
solved in the world, and that's poverty."
* Do you agree?

Jeebesh >> All technologies create problems of access. Whether it is 
print or telegraph or railways or even language, the problem of 
access and the kind of access will always be posed. But to construct 
a dramatic term like `digital divide`, the motivations are not merely 
to understand or critique access. The term comes with the moral 
baggage of other terms like `first world`and `third world` to create 
an imaginary of `lack and adundance`. In the process it neither helps 
in the understanding of `lack (lagging!)` societies nor the so called 
`abundant` societies.

Lets take the example of radio. If we look just in terms of access, 
radio transmission can be accessed from anywhere in India. Also, you 
have a large population owning/sharing radio receivers. But, there is 
no significant radio culture in terms of listeners clubs or a wide 
production base. It is more or less a vehicle for a minuscule 
minority to reach millions with their messages and opinions. This is 
the kind of access that state and corporate will love here, and will 
engender technologies and practices that suit this end. The moral 
stance of terms like `digital divide` serves this purpose only.

The digital domain is a very contested and heated domain with sharp 
battle lines drawn between regimes and apparatuses of control, 
regulation, surveillance on the one side and layers of sharing 
culture that we all participate and aspire for on the other. The real 
`digital divide` is here!.

The incessantly expanding world of the `new economy` of html 
factories, medical transcription, software components assembly lines, 
time-zone accounting, educational graphics and entertainment screens 
makes sure that connectivity is there and labour is continuously 
available. The missionaries of this new economy sometimes incline 
towards `dotcom rushes` and sometimes towards `lets make 
infrastructure` panic. Actually, I have rarely seen a business guy 
here talk about `digital divide`, probably it is bad for investments!

Ravikant >> Yes and No! Poverty is real. So is the Digital Divide. And like
'poverty'  'digital divide' is complicated. There are layers of people
who have access to the virtual world by virtue of their wealth. But
among the wealthy, there are people who do not have access on account of
sociological, linguistic and technological reasons. It is a good idea to
keep reminding ourselves that poverty is still there but also that new
inequalities are born  and reproduced everyday. Can we therefore think
of solutions that are cheap and accessible to a large body of people
cutting across class. linguistic and physical boundaries.

Aditya >> In India, we neither have great medicine, god roads (except for the
recent six-track highways being built thanks to the IMF/WB insistence on
efficient infrastructure), nor have clean water (except for expensive,
bottled mineral water). Yet the terms 'digital divide' seems to me to be
absolutely central in some ways. Let me explan. The way I see it is that we
in India are quitew accustomed to the industrialists and government tell
the trade unions that "the poor unorganized sector workers are rthe really
exploited ones, whom you ignore"; that the real issue is poverty is the way
any demand of the subaltern sections is responded to. if you talk about
affirmative action, you are only thinking about the 'reservation elite' -
so we are told. Poverty in this discourse is the business of the already
oppressed. Poverty is centrally important and the trade unions etc have a
lot to answer for. But I think that power needs to be challenged at every
level. The idea that the poorer countries need only think of poverty while
the other questions be left to those who can afford it is in my view
politically dangerous. In the last analysis, this can only make poverty and
related issues - like clean water, air and good roads more problematic.


Joy >> -- Yes I agree. Poverty has to be the first priority against any cause.

* Tell me how you're getting around the problem of access in Delhi. 
E.g. is Internet access more of a community thing? Are computers 
shared? Are emails printed out and posted on? (This happens in some 
developing countries, I'm told.) Here in Australia every net-surfer 
has his/her own computer and modem. Is that trend happening with you 
too?

Jeebesh >> If everybody works with personal computers here, then you 
will have a very big global ecological crisis at hand. Where will you 
get all the plastics!!

The most interesting part of Internet culture here is the shared 
nature of access. We share computers and access at various levels. 
The most prominent are the cybercafes that allow access to millions 
and are the most effective mode of street-level net connectivity. 
Also, these access nodes act as a kind of local post office with 
courteous couriers... These nodes mostly run on 128kbps ISDN lines 
and give a reasonable speed (lease lines are very costly). The 
charges vary from Rs 10 per hour to Rs 40 per hour. There is now a 
growing corporate interest in these cybercafes and some chains are 
beginning to emerge. Also a new combinations of fibre optic and cable 
network is emerging. It promises cheaper and better access, but the 
cable modems are prohibitively costly we have to see what new kind of 
organisational and spatial structures emerge.

ravikant >> Delhi is poised to take a leap into the big bandwidth 
zone through the cable network. So the access is bound to be fast. 
Also, apart from the
whole phenomena of Internet cafes dotted all over the cities and small
towns of India, Access is a community thing. People work on shared
computers, they also share the connection and even the mail account.
The potential of the net remains, however, largely underexplored. To
give you one example, out of a 100-odd colleges in Delhi, only 10
would have a website. And the web pages do not contain information
beyond the basic names of the faculty, etc. Students will have to go
to the college to find out the details of the courses, as  also when a
particular teacher is going to be available.

Aditya >> Access is certainly a major problem. Internet access is still very
limited and primarily a matter of corporate use. For the rest it is shared.
This is itself a function of poverty in a more general sense. There is also
a problem because of the rapidly changing culture of technology - as it
descends from its 'monumental' form to forms of more everyday use. Adapting
to such changes is slow - as it is only in the last few years that these
forms have started becoming availbale. In our own institute even now, many
faculty members get their emails printed out and dictate responses to
assistants. many are not comforable with computers, modems and dialling are
even more incmprehensible to them.

Joy >> Though in Delhi access is quite easy, but in other regions of India
access is not so simple. Lack of good telephone lines and electricity are
common problem in India. Anyway, both computer and internet both are useless
in most of the regions of India as language poses most important difficulty.
And finally obviously education is too limited which creates major problem
in growth of a society which includes computer and internet.

* Is limited access to power and phone lines in some areas a 
fundamental block to many Indians accessing the Net?

Jeebesh >> Erratic power supply and poor telephone lines are a 
reality we all live with. Slow and disrupted downloads, 
U(ninterrupted) P(ower) S(upply) and inverters, noisy generators are 
things that we are used to. Actually compared to travelling, at least 
on Delhi roads, online travel looks much simpler! On the other hand 
the issuse of power is a very contested one. There is growing 
criticism on the methods of producing power. Big hydel power projects 
or Nuclear projects are all under severe criticism, and face massive 
resistance. Displacement of millions, large scale ecological 
destruction and unequal distribution are significant issuses. So to 
argue for more power for access without sensitivity to these 
struggles will be very facile. Its a little complicated!

Ravikant >> It is. Vast areas in India do not get adequate supply of power. The
telephone connectivity has improved considerably in the last decade or
so. Yet, majority of  people  still rely on Public Phones as they can't
afford to own phone lines.

Aditya >> Yes, both are major problems,not in some areas but in most, 
practically all except metropolises.

Joy >>  Yes, along with that lack of education and poverty adds to the problem.

* In more general terms, has the Net been a democratising force? Or 
has it just concentrated power/information in a few hands?

Jeebesh >> Net has definitely created a new dynamics of horizontal 
communication and complex power play. The present legislative and 
dominant media practices show a deep anxiety around this technology. 
On the one hand there is this constant talk of e-commerce and 
e-governence and on the other a massive attempt at regulation and 
policing. The full implication of this will be understood after 
sometime. Actually, the Net is being looked primarily as a `broadcast 
medium` for state and corporate (a la newspaper, radio and 
television) rather than what it is. The horizontal multi-nodal 
network at present is kind of a threat. The older mindset/practices 
of technology and content regulation is in crisis.

Ravikant >> The  Net has thrown up an opportunity for people to be able to
communicate across languages. Also to record things which they would not
otherwise do in a predominantly oral and pre-literate  culture. Language
on the net is eclectic and closer to the popular as diverse  individual
initiatives try to speak to an unpredictable audience. The print and TV
are still the major modes of communication. Once the people working in
Indian languages transcend the psychological  and other barriers the
enterprise of small magazines can be amphibianized : a wider range of
people could have access to productions tucked away in remote corners.
That, however, is in the future.

Aditya >> Yes, the Net has had a more democratising impact in terms 
of opening up flows of information. Right now though, the main users 
have been activists
- rather than the mass of people - who have used it, even if to a limited
extent, both for information dissemination and communication. The problem
however, is that due to limited access this information, once received has
to be relayed through print and oral means. There is, I suppose, always a
differential advantage that sdocial groups have in such cases and the
already powerful get further strengthened.

Joy >>  Net has the potentiality to empower larger section of society 
but lack of access does not help much.

* Are there any government (or even private) initiatives to get Indians online?

Jeebesh >> Actually it was the state that got online first, and then 
released access. There is a huge industry because of IT enabled 
industrial applications. Also, the entertainment industry is keenly 
watching with an eagle eye. Waiting to enter in a grand way as soon 
as bandwidth is little better...

Ravikant >> There are both government and private initiatives working in this
area. The Net has come in the Liberalising phase of  the Indian economy.
  An interesting war is on between the private companies and the public
sector enterprises over territories  and profits. The government is
trying hard to grapple with issues of surveillance and it seems at the
moment it does not quite know how to go about it.

Joy >> They are always doing that, but online means nothing as most of the
people (among the little population of net users) are habituated to be
passive user like television, very few people has the ability to use net in
active mode, i.e., generating contents for net.

* What about artists and writers: has the Net given them a wider audience?

Jeebesh >> Artists at present feel somewhat threatened by the net. 
Very few artist are interested to work on it and through it. It will 
take sometime before a new generation of artists emerge who use the 
net effectively. Although some discussion lists run amongst media 
practitioners working in cinema and video.

Joy >> For most of the artists (who use net) net is a cheap way of 
marketing and
advertising compared to television ads.

* Has the Net countered the influence of mainstream newspapers - i.e. 
through providing information to the public that they won't print?

Jeebesh >> The mainstream newspaper is a part of a long established 
public culture. People carry it with them around in the circuit of 
home-travel-work-travel-leisure-home. It forms a part of everyday 
conversations and circulations of ideas about the political and 
social process. People have a general scepticism about these media 
but it is very much part of everyday life. But, now a few websites 
are getting attention for investigative journalism. Low cost 
circulation/distribution network of web based news agencies may 
create interesting constellations. Mainstream newspapers are at 
present more threatened by the entry of international  newspaper 
brands.

Ravikant >> The Net is there  as another  usable source for disseminating and
gathering information. Newspapers continue to remain the dominant mode.
The government and other agencies have started using the Net for
example,for publication of results of All-India exams, something that was
done exclusively through the newspapers.

Aditya >> In at least two areas, it certainly has. First, in terms of
subcontinental information flows - especially between Pakistan, India and
to some extent, Sri Lanka. During the Kargil war and on such other crucial
occasions, it was the availability of dissenting voices on both sides that
made the situation very differenty this time. At least at the level of the
subcontinental elite, there was enough information available for the forces
interested in peace. Second, in the case of the Narmada peoples' struggle
against displacement from the damming of the river, in the last couple of
years we manage to get almost daily postings on the situation in the
valley. Otherwise the information is usually balcked out or presented in
very biased terms.

Joy >> As net is mainly controlled and used by elite section of the 
society thus
the news are also geared to serve the elites. Thus net news is same as
newspapers. Sensational newsmakers finds some way to get attention but again
deals with only elite problems.

* Any general facts and figures re how many people have Net access in 
India would be useful, if you happen to know them.

Jeebesh >> check out www.bytesforall.org for good details about these 
kinds of facts.

Ravikant >> Here is something, by way of data, that I read in The Hindu, Folio,
April 8, 2001:

The Internet is a freak global happening which no one could have
foreseen 20 years ago, and whose growths since then has made nonsense
of all predictions. Radio was around for 38 years before its audience
reached 50 million. TV took 13 years to reach that figure. The 
personal computer  were latching on to the World Wide Web, just four 
years after it became publicly accessible. The traffic seems to 
double every hundred days - and currently 750 million worldwide are 
estimated to be able to access the Net in one form or another.
-- 
Monica Narula
Sarai:The New Media Initiative
29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054
www.sarai.net