Week 8 Reading
Best's article "Wireless Revolution and Universal Access" illuminates potentials for achieving economies of scope through Internet access in rural and "third world" geographies. I like that he presented both sides--recognizing that there are risks as well as benefits. The "lily-pad" concept was interesting because it raises the point that (theoretically) the amount of investment needed to jumpstart a "wireless revolution" is pretty minimal compared to the end results. At first, I was a little bit skeptical because I thought we should worry more about the basic needs of third-world countries before we worry about their access (or lack thereof) to the Internet. But in further reading, it was apparent that this accessibility would be a catalyst for further developments such as how the VAN decreased the cost for telecommunications in the Dominion Republic.
I'm still on the fence about how much effort should be put into providing universal accessibility to poorer, rural areas. This is not because I don't think there should be universal access--I think there should be. But is Internet communication something that is a priority for them? In the article, Best states that "Conservative ITU estimates indicate that residents or rural and poor communities might be willing to spend at least 1.5 percent of their incomes on information and communication needs." But I'm a bit skeptical. In poor, rural areas, the priority should be to build a stable economy/environment that could then turn around and support Internet technology self-sufficiently. Ideally, I think it is a great idea and agree that everybody has the right to access information. But realistically, it seems to me that the population of the areas wouldn't be able to fully utilize and reap the benefits of Internet technology until their more basic needs are met and fulfilled.
DQ's:
1. What are some ways that people in rural and third-world communities could use IT in context with their day-to-day life?
2. Do you think IT has evolved to be perceived as a "basic necessity" rather than a "luxury"? Or is this a cultural perception? Why or why not?
3. Do you think the benefits (economic, social) for UAP or licence expempt practices frequencies outweigh the risks (security, frequency interference)? Why/why not?
I'm still on the fence about how much effort should be put into providing universal accessibility to poorer, rural areas. This is not because I don't think there should be universal access--I think there should be. But is Internet communication something that is a priority for them? In the article, Best states that "Conservative ITU estimates indicate that residents or rural and poor communities might be willing to spend at least 1.5 percent of their incomes on information and communication needs." But I'm a bit skeptical. In poor, rural areas, the priority should be to build a stable economy/environment that could then turn around and support Internet technology self-sufficiently. Ideally, I think it is a great idea and agree that everybody has the right to access information. But realistically, it seems to me that the population of the areas wouldn't be able to fully utilize and reap the benefits of Internet technology until their more basic needs are met and fulfilled.
DQ's:
1. What are some ways that people in rural and third-world communities could use IT in context with their day-to-day life?
2. Do you think IT has evolved to be perceived as a "basic necessity" rather than a "luxury"? Or is this a cultural perception? Why or why not?
3. Do you think the benefits (economic, social) for UAP or licence expempt practices frequencies outweigh the risks (security, frequency interference)? Why/why not?
posted by EstherYu @ 2:57 PM
2 Comments:
At 10:42 AM,
Gina said…
Hi Esther:
Good reflection. I think the benefits outweigh the risks of providing more access to third world geographies. I agree with your explaination of the "lily-pad" concept. Even though I know that certain needs have to be met first, I think there is a line where other less vital needs can speed all other needs along.
I am also on the fence about how high a priority providing universal access should be. Basically, I think that the first level of Maslow's needs have to be complete before universal access can really fully benefit the people.
Gina*
At 4:33 PM,
Carlo said…
I think IT is becoming a necessity. For rural and third-world countries it offers people the opportunity to educate themselves with access to vast amounts of information. This could go far in providing children with education that they would have otherwise not have had access to. Through education, people could learn more about computers and even train to someday work in the IT field or something technology based. With all these benefits its hard to imagine not having the internet. I think as time goes on it will become deeper and deeper ingrained as an essential part of our daily lives.
Post a Comment
<< Home