Seattle.
The next speaker in this session at AoIR 2011 is Susan Kretchmer, whose focus is on the continuing digital divide. The U.S. ranks surprisingly lowly on broadband Internet adoption; some 14 million Americans do not have access to broadband, and 100 million could have access but don’t use it because they can’t afford it or don’t realise the advantages. Rates are especially low amongst the most disadvantaged groups.
This is being addressed through the development of a National Broadband Plan by the FCC, under instructions by the Obama administration. This envisages the U.S. as a 21st century information society, realising the social and economic benefits of broadband access. This builds on the language of a social contract for the development of greater access. Susan argues that this project must serve the public interest, and needs a clear nuanced understanding of the shifting demographics of diversity, and the ability to harness the lessons of past attempts and failures to achieve universal access.
Policy outcomes that support diversity have yet to be employed; the five decade-long failure to even achieve universal telephone access doesn’t bode well for broadband access policies – better universal access policies are required here. Some 10% or more of households consistently tend to lack access, and provide a significant barrier to achieving universal access. There are substantial variations related to age, race, ethnicity, and other socioeconomic and demographic differences; there are also important gaps between urban and rural populations.
Many official data sources may underestimate or overlook crucial realities of access gaps, in fact; for example, there are a substantial number of households excluded from the telephone network, or unable to connect to it consistently, for a variety of reasons. Non-payment is one important factor in this; few organisations are collecting data on such barriers to access. Vermont, for example, appears to have a high level of telephone penetration, but telephone disconnection rates are also comparatively high, so access remains far from universal.
Susan’s study examined households which remained without telephone access for more than 24 hours (but she’s skipping through her data very quickly, so it’s hard to follow the detail); phone disconnections appear to be related to the need to prioritise other payments in economically stressed households, for example. Of course it’s also important to recognise that there is a gradual shift from household-based (landline) to individual (mobile) telephone access in many cases, which adds further complexities.
There’s a need to move beyond the idea of saturation here, and to mobilise the four Cs of access – connectivity, but also capability (faster networks), content (free and diverse), and context (understanding local needs and opportunities). Successful access policies depend on implementation and recognition of specificities on the ground.
