Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Time for peering into the crystal ball, I guess. First, three years is about the outer limit IMO for any kind of computer technology predictions. I tend to look at trends that are coming in the next year or two and that's quite challenging enough... This week we ask GKD members to consider the distant future in ICT terms -- the next 3 years. Connectivity for All. It has a nice ring, but success thus far has been limited. Funding is a central issue. I would say that to the contrary, funding is not a central issue. It is easily possible to pour money into hare-brained schemes that will never yield positive results. Whereas, it is far more difficult to determine what scheme will succeed. Funding is important, but I believe it should come out of a natural process that begins first with coming up with a correct scheme. For example, I have recently read that the East African nations are devoting hundreds of millions of $ to build an undersea cable. I cannot say enough that this is an excellent move. However, if I could question these initiators I would ask - what is your sharing plan? Currently the West African cable (SAT-3) is very slow to bring benefits because it is monopolized. The bandwidth is NOT being used. There is in fact either none or very little competition available, but rather one single supplier in each country of the bandwidth tap that comes out of this fat pipe. The single supplier is a monopoly that knows only one rule - charge high prices. Clearly not the best for the people. What will the East African cable organization do differently? Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I suspect it has never occurred to them as a problem worth giving thought to. So I have an intrinsic distrust of huge funding because I think it's more difficult to think creatively in a very expensive project. Forgo experimentation Disagree. Technology is unpredictable. Experimentation, lots of different trials at small scale, is key. Open reporting on successes and FAILURES is key. Then harvest the results and learn, learn, learn. 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? Wi-Fi is a big one. Whoever is able to influence government policy needs to push developing governments to create an Open Spectrum plan to allow the Wi-Fi growth to happen. Java-enabled cell phones is another area that I think will explode. J2ME enabled java phones will be the new PC especially in developing areas where the following qualities are so valuable: a) portable b) rugged c) cheap d) low-power Wireless cellular in general but I don't think anyone here needs to do anything to make that happen - it's already rolling like a steamroller. In the developing world, I believe that technologies that can be used by people who are illiterate - whether is a Simputer type technology, or internet voice mail :-) will be very popular and important to achieving development goals. Broadband is very important. I think it has been given short shrift in these discussions. The #1 rule of bandwidth is you NEVER have enough bandwidth. Businesses can be built purely on the basis of HAVING broadband. We are talking about voice applications over the internet - this requires broadband. E-learning over the internet - need broadband for that. Downloading the latest version of Linux - broadband. We may realize that we sometimes have to do without it, but the goal should always be to get it. As others have pointed out already, you don't need to have international broadband to see benefits. Even local broadband, through, say, an IXP can give very substantial gains in building local content networks. And voice connections between local villages ... will still save people a lot of time walking on poor-quality roads, paying for the post, etc. 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? Yes. ;-) (that's an engineer's answer) simon 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
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?
Dear Colleagues, I am not sure that what I have to say can be described as valuable input and insights!, but here goes anyway! 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? Affordable cost. What this means is that in order to have an impact in developing situations the technology has to get mass produced and be consumer costed. Items need to be available for $10, not $1,000 or even $100. There has been a lot of talk over the past 25 years about appropriate technology and this was often interperted to be old technology. With ICT the most appropriate is more and more the most modern. Wireless minimum power using devices ... reliable . 2. What's the most valuable area for technology development? Voice recognition? Cheap broadband delivery? Cheap hand-helds (under $50)? Reliability / Affordability / better ways to get from electronic to traditional (reduced cost ink! and paper). 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? Innovators need to be able to implement best technology for development without running afoul of law and regulation that constrains best ICT practice in the interest of one particular group of stakeholders. We (in the NORTH) need to be more willing to see and listen and understand the needs of people who might be able to benefit from ICT's use parents, children, educators, students, medical service personnel, farmers, market folk .. people can use I and people can use C . maybe we should just help to see that there is access to T, and access to resources to implement T. We need to remember that the technology needs to help not only those with academic training and education, but also those who have had no formal education, but can still benefit from more knowledge, especially practical relevant local knowledge. 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? Find successful and sustainable activities. Replicate. Get constraints out of the way. Get funding on the right basis. Let the demand pull what is wanted. 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? The funding model that is needed is one that allows the SOUTH to do value adding within its own economy. Most foreign direct investment pulls a lot more value out of the SOUTH than it generates. So something different is needed. From a financial planning perspective the policy direction should be to have private local equity supported by external loan funding. The external loan funding should be rewarded for both use of money and the risk being taken. This is the AfriFund model that has been described elsewhere from time to time. This is for profit, but it is not for profit at any cost and not all the profit for the financial stakeholder at the expense of everyone else. Grant funding has been dangerous and has contributed to value destruction. Grant funding pulls local resources into areas of activity that do not have any inherent sustainability beyond the grant subsidy. Among other things, grant work gets good local people working where they essentially do little of real practical value, rather than having these people serve the local interest in struggling but essentially sustainable and priority local business (or service). This is the same sort of damage that the project form of organization has been doing for years, pulling good people into projects rather than having good people working inside the mainstream local (and underfunded) institutions. Planning should get less funding and pilot implementation should get more funding and replication of success should get most funding. A key step in this is to get information about success so success can be replicated. This is accounting and related output analysis, not the more common monitoring and evaluation exercise that serves to satisfy donors and grant givers, but so often does little to set the stage for replication . the reason being usually that the project has really failed (again) and replication is not economically worth doing. Going forward is going to be exciting. But the policy framework and the organizational design needs to be as modern and functional as the technology that has emerged over the last few years. Sincerely Peter Burgess Peter Burgess ATCnet in New York Tel: 212 772 6918 Fax: 707 371 7805 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for secure messages This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative Agreement, and
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Improving Access Via Mobile Telephony
Its increasingly clear to us: That there are no standard answers to it - people have begun using what they have access to - GSM, TDMA, WiFi, cable (even where there is no telephone and it is primarily used for TV), VSAT or what have you. That each piece of technology gets created to (a) either address a specific problem or (b) becomes available to some unintended problems on its way to finding a solution to something at a remove (c) simply serendipity (d) stumbling upon something by users etc... There is little planning outside of large organised structures to address the issue (both governmental and commercial) and efficacy of corporate investments in terms of both quality and ROI is generally closer to targets than the government bodies have managed. There has been an opening of mind that life according to internet cannot be lived in megs or gigs but, enthusiasts of any success hyping it up to a level that it becomes counter-productive, continue to flourish. The quality of emerging/ alternate technologies is far from satisfactory and in terms of quality cost-effectiveness may also be equally suspect. 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
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] How Much Bandwidth is Necessary?
I am a Digital Vision Fellow at Stanford and the focus of my work is to develop a rural messaging service that will give villagers a voice to the world. What I am proposing is a youth-led process to help villagers that don't use computers or the Internet, but want to communicate with their loved ones outside the village (in other towns or even in the Diaspora). The process will begin at the Owerri Digital Village, a community technology and learning center in eastern Nigeria. For an easier read, the steps in the process are summarized in numerical form below: 1) Villages and families will be identified. Each family will have their own email account at the center. 2) Youth agents will be trained to go out into these communities on a given schedule to take communication from these families for their relatives living outside the village. 3) The youth agents will have a customized form they will use to document the message(s). 4) In some instances if the locals speak and write only the local language and have chosen to write their own letter, the youth agent will take the handwritten letter. 5) On returning to the Owerri Digital Village, the youth agent will type up the letter or scan the letter (depending on which option was performed - 3 or 4). 6) The letter will be sent via email to the recipient and an e-post log will be completed by the youth agent. 7) When and if a response is received, the youth agent will then return to the family with the message... The cycle continues. What the program hopes to achieve is the promotion and empowerment of marginalized youth through ICT skills training for creation of socially responsible citizens, access to computers and most of all the satisfaction of doing something that the community places a significant value on. There are several other process related issues that are involved with this project including how we deal with confidentiality, what nominal price to charge and who (the local villager, their family member in the Diaspora or both), how to minimize the length of communication (with attachments, especially if we are using a BGAN where the cost is dependent on amount of data transmitted)... etc, etc. I'd be excited if there are others on this list who may be interested in working with me on the project team, or if there are any other global examples to share as we move forward with this project. Please let me know. Best, -- Njideka Ugwuegbu Reuters Digital Vision Fellow Stanford University http://reuters.stanford.edu/ Founder, Youth for Technology Foundation http://www.youthfortechnology.org (425) 681-3920 Herman Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cliff, this is a very interesting line of argument -- if this way of using the internet through an intermediary is a general practice in Africa because of the lack of connectivity, it might mean amending some of the theories of Internet communication from the idea of the Internet as a many-to-one or individualised, customised form of communication to one that is similar to the two-step flow of communication, where information is mediated by leaders or representatives in society. Can you perhaps point me to some case studies of this type of mediation, or to specific examples? Thanks Cliff Missen wrote: Today, villager's messages are being delivered on paper to a Internet Cafe and then transcribed into email for delivery worldwide by someone who holds an email account. There may someday be a SERVICE that enhances this informal relationship to the point where a single griot can manage email accounts for hundreds of clients through a simple handheld device. It'll take a little tweaking of the current email and client software, but it's very possible. 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
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Bringing Connectivity to Under-Served Communities
On November 14th, Thaths (Sudhakar Chandra) wrote: This brings to mind something that the satellite radio outfit WorldSpace is doing. The idea is brilliant, in my opinion. You basically buy this satellite radio (approx. $70-100 depending on model). You also buy a computer card to interface with the radio. For a fee (that includes the card free) of approx. $40, you get unmetered limited internet access. The access is limited in the sense that you are restricted to a few WorldSpace approved websites. This would work great if WorldSpace expanded the list of approved sites to include those like Yahoo mail and Hotmail. Unfortunately, they don't. For most people, getting cheap access to a web-based email system like Yahoo mail is a good start. The great news is that WorldSpace is a strategic partner of the CampusAxxess solution that I have spoken about in previous messages. There is now a WorldSpace receiver with a USB connection that plugs directly into the CampusAxxess content server that hosts the school network. In addition to caching educational content requested by teachers and the Ministry of Education in each country, it is also preloaded with a broad range of curriculum from North American universities and colleges, K-12 curriculum content in multi-modal versions (video, text, multimedia) formats. And, it should be noted, that this content is refreshed nightly with any updates to ensure it provides the optimal student or user experience. The WorldSpace connection together with this CampusAxxess last mile solution for any school, campus, or village truly narrows the digital divide in an affordable and sustainable way. For more info, contact Dr. S. Rangarajan, Sr. Vice President of WorldSpace at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or me. Regards Bob History teaches us that people and nations behave wisely, once they have exhausted all other alternatives Abba Eban 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
[GKD-DOTCOM] Using Intermediaries to Facilitate Communication
Regarding the messages of Herman Wasserman and Cliff Missen, this is interesting but there is a danger I think in any strategy that seeks to rely on intermediaries. Cliff uses the word griot but in fact it may be more like marabout or priest (although these latter analogies are not perfect either) - a class of more educated people to mediate between common folk and the knowledge (technology), and by extension do the interpreting for them. Cliff is right to point out the use of notes and more knowledgeable or mobile intermediaries in communications. Long before internet, of course, there were some people who would help their illiterate neighbors to write letters. But such is no one's ideal, just something that works. Likewise for e-mail etc. Access is the issue and that has 2 parts in the case of computers intenet: the physical aspect (are you in proximity and can you afford to log on?) and the meaningful or soft aspect (if you had physical access and found yourself seated in front of a connected computer, would anything make sense?). The latter overlaps with user skills of course (basic literacy again, and now computer literacy) but depends also on the user interface, design of software, content, and language. The fact is that even, say, the old lady who grilled kebabs and fried sliced yams in front of the Binnta cybercafé in Bamako - and most of the passers by who would sit and eat on the corner there - would have to send something through an intermediary not because of distance (assuming for a moment that access fee inside was not a problem) but because the technology would not facilitate their use of their first language, written, or provide for mailing an audio message (for the lady and others among them who were not literate). I'm not at all comfortable with the notion of person-to-person or web-to-individual(s) information being mediated where it's not absolutely necessary, and then only as a temporary strategy and with as few transformations as possible - i.e., if as a service, more like a postal relay (can what the sender says be recorded and transmitted exactly as such through the media to the receiver?) than like the traditional letter writer in much of Africa who hears in one language, translates into another, and writes a letter that may have to be back-translated on the other end. Maybe handhelds will help in this regard. On another level some internet for development efforts have relied on people who surf and translate (e.g., in connection with a local community radio) - in effect another kind of intermediary. This is certainly helpful, but if the vision does not extend to developing at least some content that bypasses the need for such intermediation (and interpretation), then it risks institutionalizing a relationship that by its nature keeps some people marginalized. Don Osborn Bisharat.net 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
