Re: [GKD] The $100 Computer is Key to India's Technology Fortunes
Mark, Great post. I'd add some related comments: - In developing areas with little or no communications infrastructure, voice is the most important 'application'. - For voice, cell phones are ideal. - Cell phones are very, very nice for their small size and great battery performance. - Cell phones are not lower-tech, internally, than computers. - Computers will come down in price the same way as cell phones. - Cell phones can do data/text/email/web, but I wouldn't call them ideal for these activities (how many of us on this list that have web/email capable phones use them for this list rather than a computer?) - Cell phones are a quite closed system, including both the phones themselves and the required infrastructure. - Computers are quite open; lots of ways to make them, lots of organizations can make new ones. Inveneo Jhai are two that I know about but many others as well; maybe someday we'll see millions of $100 computers from MIT :-) - The communications infrastructure needed for computers is quite flexible and quite amendable to organic growth at the edges, which can be readily built by the users -- schools, NGO's, ISPs, SMEs, using local wires (CAT5), wireless, or sometimes even GigE on fiber. - Edge/last mile infrastructure built and operated by the users has very, very low costs and very good performance. So while reaching the rest of the Internet may still be slow and expensive, reaching others in your same town or area is very fast and cheap. -- Jim On Jul 28, 2005, Mark Summer wrote: I think cell phones have their space and useful applications and computers have their specific space and other useful applications. Thinking of using cell phones in class rooms for curriculum delivery seems to be quite a bit far fetched - with a small screen you can do only so much in my opinion. With a decent sized keyboard and a mouse with software that supports these types of input devices, you will always be way better off when working, say on spreadsheets, text documents or drawings. And these skills do provide a lot of benefit to people looking for jobs. There is, as well, the whole concept of a larger display, where multiple people can read information from it at the same time and such. Using a cell phone to check email and surf the web may appeal to some more then others. I do believe on the other hand that SMS / Text messaging is a very powerful tool and very cost effective as well. I was recently in Uganda and there you can get access to market prices for crops in various towns via SMS - this may be of value for many people. And there are many more very good uses out there. Thinking of computers as a thing of the past is, in my opinion, something to discuss 15 to 20 years from now, but certainly not in the next 5 years. ..snip... ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** 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 Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Is Profitability Essential for Sustainability?
Dear Colleagues, I realize I left out one other point about ICT development and profitability: I was making the case for profit as an important metric, and indeed I think that private, for-profit companies can and should take the lead in much of ICT, but profit is not the only metric and there is an important and natural role for the public sector in creating part of the network infrastructure for ICT. In the networking part of ICT I would propose a hybrid of public/private investment, somewhat analogous to many of our transportation systems (except railroads). The public sector builds the roads and highways, but the private sector supplies the vehicles, fuel distribution systems, trucking companies, etc. I think the road construction, while not cheap, is quite smaller than the rest of the system. In particular, I think in many cases it makes a lot of sense for the public sector to build what we call Layer 0 of the networking stack: the physical layer. In cities that would be fiber conduits and possibly fiber bundles. They could then rent access to these conduits or fibers to companies that install equipment that uses these to make useful services, such as voice and data connectivity. These companies in turn would sell voice or data service to individuals and businesses. Secondly, in some cases it may make sense for the public sector to take the lead in building a backbone network, to which smaller regional or community networks might attach. And in most cases the public sector funds much of the educational system. The Internet is now a vital part of the educational system, and as such, public funding of educational uses of the Internet makes sense too. Thanks, -- Jim This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide 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 Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Is Profitability Essential for Sustainability?
Dear GKD Members, I'm Jim Forster. I am a Distinguished Engineer at Cisco Systems and have worked here since close to the beginning. Bettina Hammerich made some very good points in her recent posting that also pertain to the current question of the role of profitability, including: * Businesses are more likely to be efficient service providers * Governments and NGO's can be corrupt and/or ineffective and * Environmental and human rights are not best served by the free market * The level playing field is uneven and everyone is not free to choose * MNCs are not transparent Perhaps some of the concerns in the second group can be addressed in time. I would hope, for instance, that some of the environmental effects could be reduced by burdening the products with projected environmental costs and in some way capturing the externalities. This is easier said than done but simple examples include requiring recycling fees at the time of purchase. MNCs are not transparent; neither are some NGOs and some governments. All should be pressured to be more transparent. To me, a major benefit of a for-profit goal is that the profit (or loss) is a very convenient metric that indicates whether the goods or services are useful when compared to alternatives. This metric includes factors from both the demand side (do people want it enough to pay for it) and the supply side (is it being done efficiently). I've been very suspicious of other metrics because I think they're too easily 'gamed' by insiders. Even the profit system can be cheated with an uneven playing field or without the rule of law. Without feedback from the people it's very easy to fall into the trap of 'knowing what is good for others'. I've worked at for-profit company (Cisco Systems) for a long while, and I have to say that while I think we've got great employees, we've succeeded because we learned how to listen when our customers have voted with their wallets. I trust our customer's judgment of what they want more than our expertise. -- Jim This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide 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 Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Misunderstanding Broadband
I agree with this Al. I'll attempt to clarify another aspect of the confusion in the usage of the term Broadband. In many usages broadband implies more bandwidth than narrowband. This is the typical usage in the context of areas with well-developed traditional communications infrastructures, typically PTT and PSTN based. The other aspect of the term broadband has less to do with the amount of delivered bandwidth than the fact that it uses different infrastructure than narrowband. Narrowband typically means DS-0, analog-modems, a copper loop from a Central Office, and classic phone switch. Broadband might use any of cable modems, DSL, licensed wireless or unlicensed (e.g. 802.11). I agree that in many cases surprisingly little bandwidth can be quite useful, and at the same time in 802.11 (or similar technologies) is the cheapest way to deliver access bandwidth. Finally, we need to separately consider the access bandwidth and the backhaul bandwidth. In many small village environments 802.11 can very economically support several mbps of shared local bandwidth. The monthly expense of the backhaul connection (VSAT and ISP fee) dominates the cost and limits the available bandwidth. -- Jim On 11/6/03 11:22 AM, Al Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to reply to Peter Burgess and clear up an important misconception. Connectivity is essential for local networking, for access to information, for local content generation, for increasing transparency and trust, for e-commerce--so its not the goal, but it is a critical tool. In most developing communities, especially rural, wireless access is the only affordable approach. Broadband wireless is critical to development, because existing and especially next generation technologies allow you to connect widely dispersed users with a single piece of equipment--thus aggregating the demand and lowering the cost of access--and to do so in unlicensed spectra, thus enabling small entrepreneurs and non-proft groups to provide access without waiting for large carriers (in principle--there are still regulatory barriers in many places). WiFi networks already cover ranges of 100 miles or more, with repeaters and tuned anntennae--in Laos, in California, in India, and in many other places. WiMax networks will cover whole cities (30 mile braodcast range, not point to point) or link widely scattered local WiFi networks. (3-G cellular data networks have many similar features, but operate only in liscensed spectra.) Thus the critical feature of broadband wireless is that it will lower end user cost, by aggregating more demand. The fact that it is broadband and allows more multimedia content (such as video mail and video conferencing, and face/voice recognition for secure identity in transaction, and more intuitive graphic interfaces--all important for semi-literate users) is simply a bonus. The key fact is the superior economics of wireless broadband from the point of the end user--these are not luxury class items, but instead absolutely critical to spreading connectivity access to poor communities at prices they can afford. I think it important that the ICT for development community become aware of these characteristics, so they don't unknowingly oppose advances that could really make a huge difference in poor 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
Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] Bringing Connectivity to Under-Served Communities
Sorry for the late post...hope it's not too late for this subject. I'm Jim Forster, an engineer with cisco Systems. I thought I'd describe a small effort in Nepal that I'm helping. -- Jim 1. What activities are endeavoring to bring connectivity to under-served communities? Dave Hughes, a long-time advocate of unlicensed wireless for rural connectivity, as been in Nepal helping Tsering Sherpa set up 802.11 for the main Sherpa village of Namche. Namche apparently gets a fair amount of tourist and Mt. Everest climber money, but their telephony service was cut off when the Maoists blew up the government-owned telephone relay tower. Last year Tsering set up a small PBX and supplied voice service to some lodges, and Internet service to some Internet café's in Namche. Last week Tsering and Dave Hughes setup 3 802.11 radios to provide 802.11 service to all of Namche, and via relay to the SPCC National Park HQ. They had planned to provide relay service to a nearby school but will need another radio for that service. When that happens the students will receive English lessons from a Sherpa in Colorado, using VoIP over Internet the whole way -- no PSTN whatsoever. See http://www.linkingeverest.com/gallery/learning for the original idea, and http://www.linkingeverest.com/gallery/hughes-everest?page=4 for pictures of the project underway. 2. What are the goals of these efforts? To what extent are the goals attained? Enable English language lessons and increased educational opportunities through Internet and VoIP. Preserve Sherpa culture by enabling those that must leave to find work to remain in contact with their families and village. Enable the whole village to economically share one VSAT connection. Demonstrate to to the world, through the visiblity that Sherpas have due to Everest, that Internet connectivity is feasible anywhere and economical in many places. 3. Who is being served by these connectivity efforts? Are the benefits widely distributed? Do some groups win and some lose in these connectivity efforts? 4. How do connectivity efforts seek to ensure that all groups benefit? 802.11 coverage of the entire village lowers the barriers. 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
