Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What's on the Horizon?

[Don Osborn]

I'd like to add a set of technologies involving language to the list
before this thread is entirely cold: translators, text-to-speech (TTS),
and speech-to-text (STT). In societies of the global South that are
multilingual, and have strong oral traditions and low literacy rates,
these technologies might be used in some interesting ways. For instance,
computer translators could be used to help speed up translation of
educational materials for publication. TTS could turn any text web page
into something oral (even if aethetically not as pleasing as the human
voice). STT could be used to assist in transcribing oral histories etc.,
and I wonder about the possibility of creating synchronized audio-text
files with this technology which would facilitate searching.

All three of these "language transformative" technologies exist and are
being refined. Aside from time and money to make them work for different
needs & settings, they do depend on staying with a standard orthography
for each language - an area where ICT and language policies need to be
coordinated.

While computer translators are kind of a gimmick to many in the North
and a tool used in a limited (?) way by some businesses, and TTS and STT
are, so far as I'm aware, thought of mainly as a way to assist people
with disabilities, I think all three could have a tremendous long term
impact in the multilingual South.

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

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] The Role of the Private Sector

[Don Richardson]

Related to this question:

> 1. What specific elements does a policy environment need in order to
> encourage the private sector to expand access to poor, isolated,
> underserved areas? Where do such policies exist?

I just came across the latest issue of Telematics and Informatics
 - Volume 21,
Issue 1 - Telecommunications Development in Africa. Besides offering
some real empirical research (how refreshing!), there is an excellent
article titled "The Washington Consensus' in relation to the
telecommunication sector in African developing countries" by Jorn
Stovring.

Here are a few snippets below, but I strongly encourage people
interested in universal access to give this article and the entire issue
a read. What the Washington Consensus paper points to, from my
perspective, is the critical importance of civil society involvement in
national telecom policy and regulatory reform - and the role of donors
in building the capacity of civil society organizations, particularly
those with rural constituencies (such as farmer organizations and rural
NGOs).

.

"...The actual practices--e.g. using the public operator as a domain for
extended family employment, siphoning operator surplus off through sub
delivery contracts, political-administrative use of communication
without pay, etc.--are difficult to document, but the cumulative effects
are clearly a lower performance than if the [incumbent operator] had
been managed on strict commercial conditions in a market context.

"Transparency on a level playing field is also necessary for
deregulation to obtain the benefits of competition. For these forces, to
work they must be implemented within capable regulatory frameworks. In a
context of neo-patrimonial practices, the rationale simply does not work
as in a situation based on good governance premises. Typically, the
dominant elite or the main operator may have long established relations
to the state department and may try to capture regulatory reform
processes."

"What sets the mobile cellular sub sector apart was the introduction of
market forces in the form of competition. The construction of duopoly
and oligopoly has in a number of countries resulted in competition. The
market dynamics were established through the introduction of a number of
new entrants... The fact that more players have been introduced into the
once docile monopoly area is going to strengthen the regulatory
institutions. The mobile cellular operators are (mostly) united in the
need for a level playing field and transparent relations to the main
operator. Over time, the plurality of players will strengthen regulatory
institutions. Thus, even in structures and institutions with elements of
patrimonial practices, the market dynamic may curb such effects."

.


Don Richardson




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

[S Woodside]

On Monday, December 1, 2003, Robert Miller wrote:

> Simon Woodside wrote:
>
>> WorldSpace is a broadcast system. With a WorldSpace system you are 
>> only capable of receiving data, not sending it.
>
> I wish to disagree in that we are currently using WorldSpace very
> effectively as a global multicast solution to refresh all of the Axxess
> servers that Advanced Interactive currently has installed across Africa.
> With a dialup line as a "back channel" the server maintains contact with
> the global Network Operations Center that remotely manages this entire
> network.

..[snip statements I agree with]...

> let us not discount this technology where a differentiated "last mile"
> solution can manage its shortcomings and turn 1-way downlink with a
> server managed dialup back channel into a viable way of a sustainable
> affordable connected community.

Robert, your post has raised more questions than it answered. Thus far,
WorldSpace has been billed as a beachhead information system that can be
deployed in areas that have no communications infrastructure. I think
I'm convinced at this point that's a valid development, though not one I
would ever pursue.

It's been assumed so far that once an internet connection is available,
the internet is superior. And yes -- since on the internet, my rural
users can talk back, hold conversations, email their relatives, use VoIP
-- all impossible with WorldSpace.

Now you have described a situation which adds a dialup to the regular
WorldSpace receiver unit. But why would anyone bother with WorldSpace at
all if they have dialup internet access?

We run the risk of applying a technology (WorldSpace) "just because we
can" in that situation.

simon

--
99% Devil, 1% Angel
homepage http://www.simonwoodside.com
for the developing world http://www.openict.net
member of http://www.mozilla.org/projects/camino




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?

[William Lester]

As part of our dialogue about "bringing connectivity to under-served
communities" and the use of "intermediaries" in communication, I want to
introduce a concept that I discussed last year -- the use of eRiders and
iRiders to facilitate effective use of technology tools in low resource
areas.

In many countries, much of the groundwork for improving communications,
acquiring bandwidth, leveraging ICTs, etc. is being done by nonprofit
and nongovernmental organizations. eRiders and iRiders are resources
used by the NPOs/NGOs to improve their internal use of technology tools
and to help their clients better utilize ICTs.

An "eRider" is a local technology person, who has received special
training in the use of appropriate technology for low resource areas.
The clients of eRiders are NPOs, NGOs, and their clients. An eRider
supports multiple sites and circulates from one to another on a regular
basis, providing strategic technology planning and implementation, tech
support and basic training. They are sometimes called "circuit riders",
although that name is becoming less common. Because their training
prepares them specifically for the NPO/NGO world, they understand
budgeting cycles, donor demands, working with volunteers, changing
priorities, project management and evaluation, etc.

An "iRider" or "information rider" follows an eRider, and works with the
NPO/NGO and their clients to evaluate the various technology tools
available, teaches the staff how to use these tools appropriately, and
improve their skills and hopefully increase their output. This is a long
term commitment and provides in-depth help. It is important to note that
an iRider is not a techie. S/he is often a program person who has a
natural ability to learn and use ICTs effectively. They speak the
"language" of the locals, not techie jargon. They are sometimes called
"accidental techies". Every office has them -- the person who actually
knows how to fix the printer, or who can do mail merge, or can do
evaluations using statistical analysis software, who knows why the
telephone is not working, or how to get email. With proper training,
they can become gurus for the technology tools, and help an NPO/NGO or
their clients better use the ICTs that are available.

Because eRiders and iRiders work with multiple organizations and
clients, they can often leverage these resources and provide solutions
for an office, a building, a town, a region, or even a country. They
prevent the "reinventing the wheel" syndrome by sharing best practices
among their constituency and with other riders. They are the ones who
read discussions like this, evaluate the many good suggestions, choose
the solutions appropriate for the environment where they work, help to
raise the funds for implementation, carry out the work, and train others
in how to use and support the final implementation.

I want to emphasize that eRiders and iRiders are local people, not
expats. Typically a potential rider is someone doing similar services
already, but without the intervention of training that gear their skills
towards this specific market. The funding for the training of
eRiders/iRiders often comes from the same organizations that fund the
NPOs/NGOs. Riding builds local business and local expertise. Because
this is such a cost effective solution for organizations/clients that
struggle with ICTs, the movement has been growing in both the developing
world and even in the developed world.

For more information you can check out the following web sites. These
are just a few of the many organizations utilizing these ideas and are
presented in no special order:

http://www.eriders.net

http://www.kabissa.org

http://www.ungana-afrika.org

http://www.tacticaltech.org

http://www.nten.org


Bill Lester

  
  
William A. Lester
CTO/Director of Technology
NinthBridge
a program of EngenderHealth
440 Ninth Avenue
New York, NY 10001
(Office) 212.561.8002   (eFax) 212.202.5167
(e-Mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
(URL) www.ninthbridge.org
"The Means to The Mission"



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?

[Cornelio Hopmann]

Dear Joy,

Actually the situation is worse: in most cases the proposed indicators
for eReadiness do not permit to reflect adequately the local context,
i.e. they blur instead of sharpen the eReadiness-picture ... and hence
suggest bad strategies.

Example: obviously illiteracy is an obstacle to use ICT directly -- and
not only due to the lack of skills in reading and writing, but rather
more deeply: literacy comes along with the notion of abstract concepts
which are coined and learned as the fundamental part of learning to read
and write. You aren't taught only how just to spell words but how to
form arguments and to establish reasoning -- some say linearize
reasoning into cause-effect chains. If there weren't those deeper roots
of the problem, it would be sufficient to develop cheap
voice-recognition and "speech" software just so that all those
illiterates may send and receive emails - but practise shows that "this"
solution doesn't work beyond simple command usage in speaking
ATM-machines. To "dictate" a meaningful text ... you have to know how to
write it yourself.

Time as resource is another such abstract invisible concept, yet crucial
for ICT and it's benefits, even to realize that there might be benefits
ahead by using ICT.

As the Millennium Goals state we will have to live with illiteracy at
least for one or two decades more if not more  So correctly
"measured" eReadiness should not take simply illiteracy as an indicator
-- less as an average indicator, because the eReadiness of and for those
who are literate is something qualitatively different -- but rather
allow to "measure" which bridges are in place -- we had lots of examples
in recent email -- to "bridge over" the Digital Divide.

But here again we hit another conceptual wall of most indicators: they
are implicitly based on an Individual Consumer Model, appropriate maybe
for consumer societies but totally inadequate for
non-consumer-societies, i.e. they allow only to measure (and express)
individual and direct access to ICT (even if the "individual" is an
enterprise) and not group or collective access.

Again an example: assume that you got a literate member of those large
families (clans) we still find in many of our countries. Then -- for
eReadiness-indicators -- it makes absolutely no difference whether he
alone uses Internet or whether he does Internet Access on behalf of his
whole -say 40 person- family. Now take the following alternatives: (a)
train this person, using Internet until now only for his own sake, to do
a better job serving as bridge for his whole family or (b) find another
literate family member and get him/her alone on the net. Standard
Indicator logic would favor the second alternative (100% improvement)
while development logic (effectiveness) would incline balance obviously
to the first. (You may substitute "family" with "community" and vary
usage conditions -e.g. a cooperative and price-info etc. - and will have
a splendid explanation why so many ICT projects are "statistically" a full
success but in reality a complete waste.)

Cordialmente
Cornelio

PS: those interested may find a complete country-report of Nicaragua
based precisely on the above observations about the methodical flaws of
standard eReadiness at http://www.eready.org.ni/Ereadyconcept.htm (in
English)



Joy Olivier wrote:

> Yacine Khelladi wrote:
>
>> I believe all projects should be started like this from the needs, and
>> build a sustainable capacity to manage ICT integration/appropriation.
>> Whatever technology is used or available. And IMHO yes, every project,
>> ICT4D project, is somehow unique, not necessarily scalable, as ICT is
>> just one element in the complex "development process" equation.
>
> I'm writing a paper on e-readiness assessments and the Millennium
> Development Goals. A conclusion I've reached is that access to
> technology is not the point. It's exactly as Yacine says - ICT is only
> an [albeit powerful and potentially very useful] element of development
> initiatives. The problem is poverty, and the digital divide is just
> another manifestation of existing inequalities and injustices. I do
> think that access to ICT is important for equality and empowerment, and
> that becoming part of the Information society broadens options and
> opportunities, but access is not enough. ICT for Development initiatives
> need to strive towards enabling "Real Access" (see www.bridges.org),
> with a specific goal that this access is going to achieve.
>
> Instead of measuring e-readiness (how ready a country/community is to
> gain the benefits offered by ICT in terms of policy, infrastructure and
> ground level initiatives), we rather need to consider the application of
> ICT for concrete goals. While those offered by the Millennium
> Development Goals are only proxies for the complex and multi-faceted
> phenomenon of poverty, they are at least concrete goals to which our
> leaders have committed. Mainstreaming ICT through inclusion in nati

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] The Role of the Private Sector

[Don Richardson]

> 2. What lessons have we learned about the risks and rewards of creating
> public-private partnerships to expand access to the underserved? Where
> have these lessons been applied, and where have they worked?

Here is an interesting and timely example. K-Net Services is a program
of Keewaytinook Okimakanak (KO) tribal council in remote "fly-in"
communities of Canada. K-Net is providing broadband network services and
ICT applications (telehealth, education, economic development, community
e-centres) to First Nations in remote regions of northwestern Ontario,
Canada. Over the course of about 5 years, K-Net has gone from a bare
bones ISP to a carrier class broadband network services provider -
aboriginally owned and managed, in some of the most challenging
circumstances that Canada has to offer.

K-Net case studies will be presented at WSIS in Geneva. The case
studies describe lessons learned, challenges overcome and
recommendations for others. A PDF of the case studies is available at
 (4.3 MB) The
introduction to the case studies is at
 (657K). A multi-media
version of the case studies, including several videoclip interviews, and
impact statement testimonials is at
. Spanish and French versions
are forthcoming.

I encourage anyone who will be going to WSIS to visit the Canadian
Pavilion, learn more about K-Net, and pick up a CD-ROM with these case
studies. Jesse Fiddler from K-Net will be presenting some of this
material and his stories at some of the different events in Geneva.

What K-Net has achieved in less than a decade in terms of broadband
network and technical infrastructure development is impressive: several
communities have gone from having one phone for 400 people four years
ago, to accessing broadband services from individual homes today. There
are few rural communities in Canada or the world - and particularly few
remote ones - that have experienced such a dramatic transformation in
such a short period of time. At the core of the success is a
fundamental and on-going approach to community-based
planning/implementation and stakeholder engagement in ongoing management
of services which are directed to community social and economic goals.

Public-private partnerships have been an important ingredient. One of
the important lessons from the K-Net experience has been to pay close
attention to the community process that directs technological
development. K-Net has been described as a "mediating organization", one
that works on behalf of communities and ensures that the services they
receive are appropriate, technologically sound, and sustainable. 
Government services are a key customer for this aboriginally owned
network - government benefits by being able to provide improved services
to very remote populations at reasonable cost. By aggregating demand
and network service revenues among various government agencies, the
network is able to meet financial sustainability needs. A key private
sector partnership is with Telesat Canada to assist in delivering
affordable broadband access and services to other remote First Nations
communities across the country via C-band satellite.

Cheers,
Don Richardson, PhD.
Director
TeleCommons Development Group
Stantec Consulting
361 Southgate Drive
Guelph, Ontario
N1G 3M5
Canada
Tel: 519-836-6050; Fax: 519-836-2493
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.telecommons.com or www.stantec.com




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] Using Intermediaries to Facilitate Communication

[IVO NJOSA]

Pat Hall wrote:
 
> ...is there something else going on here - perhaps the language policies
> of Nigeria have led to the education system favouring English?

In response to Pat, Europeans carved up Africa without seriously
integrating the polarizational issue of tribe and hence culture. Let us
not make the same mistake with ICT. Ideally, Africans should learn to
read/write in their everyday spoken language. I believe there is a
school of thought that strongly views this as advantageous.
Unfortunately, many to most African countries have a different tribal
language every few miles. Moreover, each tribe views its language as
the best and that it should be the national language if there were to be
one. Thus for a country like Nigeria, counting only the big three;
should it be Ibo, Hausa or Yoruba. Presumably one would want this
teaching to start at elementary schools and onwards. Try teaching Yoruba
to an Ibo child--even if it would be for the good of the country. Should
one then limit it to only tribal members? Who is going to fund all these
regional programmes? The national government that is striving for
unity?. One cannot even do it on a regional level because there are
children from different areas living and attending school within a
particular region -- even though they may not be a majority.

There are a few country exceptions that come to mind where a national
language can be the village language also and the idea may work better,
(Central African Republic, Madagascar to name a few), but this is rare.
Consequently, English and French were chosen through the colonial rulers
because of its tribal-neutrality and ease of communication with the
outside world. In conclusion, the idea in itself is a good one; but like
many Western-inspired projects, it does not integrate enough the
dimension and complexity of a seemingly mundane African issue called "my
village".

Ivo Njosa
Information and Communication Technology 




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