I'd just like to emphasize again the assumption "Connectivity for All" would infer that there's something worthwhile to be connected to. Too often I think we focus on the technologies. Too often we are distracted by the lure of how much easier, or faster, or cheaper, "things" can be done by PDAs, broadband, handhelds... But what rigorous analyses and debates do we witness about the actual products that should be "facilitated" by these technologies? I believe that we can easily be misled by the sex-appeal of new technologies. I believe computers are still hard to use for most people because they were first a technology and secondly a solution -- built by technologists. We need to reverse the thinking here. Get plain people to speak out for what they do, or want to do, and then let us focus on throwing some suggestions and prototypes around to see if, frankly, there's a reason to chase after connectivity at all.
In Ghana, where we run the largest private technology center in Africa, with over 1,500 visitors daily, the demand for connectivity is clear. But two hours outside of Accra, a digital village lays fallow -- the internet connection has been dropped from lack of, what? interest, affordability, applicability? What's the need for connectivity when most of the content and services are not customized, or developed by the communities that they seek to serve? In Ghana, there's a crisis in telecenters, or at least most of them, because no one is really thinking to actually craft services online for Ghanaians. Yesterday I took a poll at the Ghana cybercafe association meeting, and most cybercafes have their home page set to Yahoo! Yet in Ghana, we suffer to pay our bills, we suffer to find up-to-date telephone directories, we suffer to get notices about upcoming events, we suffer to find inventory for car parts and more...There's a huge opportunity to massage and facilitate the flow of information here -- I just don't see the debate focussed on what the information needs to be. We all talk about rural connectivity, but how many of us have actually sat around and had a couple of conversations with villagers about what that is, or what it means to them? In perfunctory discussions with farmers, "what information do you use or need" they clearly want price information. Not world cocoa prices. No, they want to know what a bowl of tomatoes sold for yesterday in the neighboring market. It's a no-brainer -- a pure information exercise. They just want some extra knowledge so that they can keep a few more cedis in their pocket when bartering with the traders. There are a few projects I've found in Africa trying this, but I'm amazed that the development community, the technology community, all of us, haven't got thirty of these services up and running across similar markets and sharing ideas about how best they apply. Too often well-intentioned people travel around communities to "showcase" ICT projects and services on health and agriculture. But when challenged, what's really out there that's simple to use and truly meaningful to the intended stakeholders? I fear it's little. And who's out there learning from communities, rather than showcasing things to them? I've seen this "enthusiasm" before with the dotcom boom in the states. What's possible technologically gets us all excited, a few ideas follow to exploit the technology, then after a year or two we dump the silly bits and get down to listening to what people want. It's the same with websites, digital cameras, phones and more. So here are my areas of focus for the future: KEY QUESTIONS: > 1. What new "high impact" technologies are on the 3-year horizon? Who > (exactly) needs to do what (concretely) to make those technologies > widely available? Forget technology, think services. We'll build the tools to meet the challenge. We've already got loads of great technology that's under-utilized. I bet you cybercafes in Ghana would be able to afford the new cheap VSATs coming if people actually found more "useful stuff to do" than only email. Occupancy and prices would increase and the telecenter model would become sustainable. I think the web and SMS could be "high impact" if only they were used appropriately. DSL in urban areas will reduce cost and transform connectivity in major cities. Biased, but a necessary development for corporations seeking affordable access (because the phone companies own the only cheap access (SAT-3)). > 2. What's the most valuable area for technology development? Voice > recognition? Cheap broadband delivery? Cheap hand-helds (under $50)? Technology focuses on 1) the interface to information (computer/pda/phone/paper/pen) and 2) the method (satellite, WI-FI, fiber-optic, twisted copper). Rather than focussing on whether it's held in a hand, up to an ear, or in front of you on a desk -- focus on what people actually want to see/use. Let WAP be a lesson to all of us for now, that all new technology doesn't drive usage -- only a few truly revolutionary tech inventions have opened up new ways of communicating (TCP/IP?). > 3. Where should we focus our efforts during the coming 3 years? On ICT > policy? Creating ICT projects with revenue-generation models that are > quickly self-supporting? Demonstrating the value of ICT to developing > country communities? Provide telecenters (who are the current modern schools and libraries in this context) with services and products that people will use. Encourage mediation of services either through individuals or through traditional forms of media distribution (broad not narrow cast). Let communities demonstrate value to us, not us to them. Policy is crucial to opening up markets for innovation and attracting investment, and protecting risk. But governments are the last people to act as product developers -- they must encourage that activity through clear and clean legislation (VOIP in Ghana for example). > 4. What levels of access should we be able to achieve by 2007 in each of > the major under-served regions? Who (exactly) must do what (concretely) > to attain them? Let the local community determine what access it wants, driven by the services that access will enable. That will determine the spread of connectivity. Nobody went out and insisted on mobile phone penetration in these markets. I belive that communities and individuals will be incentivised to generate revenues to pay for what they want. Like television, access is subsidized through advertising and sponsorship. That model may still be appropriate as a way of mitigating cost. (Think fertilizer or transport company sponsoring the market price weekly update). > 5. What funding models should we develop over the next 3 years? Projects > with business plans that provide self-sustainability? Support from > multilateral corporations? Venture capital funds for ICT and > development? We must somehow create an environment where local entrepreneurs can take some risks in product development. Right now life is too tight to throw cash around playing with some "possible" wins. They need probable wins. Or they need to be subsidized to get there. Business Incubators, project funding, grants, loans to local entrepeneurs should be encouraged, and let's aim for a 20% success rate. The silly money that characterized dotcom enabled an enormously creative period. I wouldn't suggest anything to that scale, or that silliness, but we need to replicate some of that type of lubricant to allow local people to feel they can try new things without losing their life savings in the process. Local venture capital firms are excellent proxies for international funds -- but we need to make it affordable for them to do small deals (what characterizes most ICT innovation startups). I think incubators (Infodev?) that assist in the management and professional support could be paired with private funding to stimulate this creativity. Let the "national" entrepreneurs cluster in their natural urban bias, and then mandate a percentage of funding to be directed for projects that serve other communities. ------------ This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides more information. To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd For the GKD database, with past messages: http://www.GKDknowledge.org
