Transcript Presentation

ICT measurement and beyond
(emphasis on the Internet)
• A bit of background
• Recent UNCTAD report
• Moving beyond the digital divide
Internet diffusion, 9/1991
Internet diffusion, 6/1997
Latin American survey
Toward an Internet Census for
Developing Nations
Larry Press <[email protected]>, USA
Luis Rodríguez <[email protected]>, Venezuela
Mosaic dimensions
E-readiness assessments
• 23 tools and methodologies
• 188 nations have been assessed at least once
• 68 nations have been assessed between 5 and 10
times
• 69 nations have been assessed over 10 times
• None: N. Korea, Tuvalu, Monaco and Nauru
Bridges.org, February/March, 2005
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE REPORT:
ICT DIFFUSION INDEX 2005
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
United Nations
New York and Geneva, 2006
ICTDI is a function of
• Connectivity, as measured by Internet hosts per
capita, number of PCs per capita, the number of
telephone mainlines per capita and the number of
mobile subscribers per capita. As such, it gives a
measure of the infrastructure development.
• Access, as measured by the number of estimated
Internet users, the adult literacy rate, the cost of a
local call and GDP per capita (PPP US$). This
component aims at describing the opportunity to take
advantage of being connected.
The ICTDI rank versus average
rank of five ICT indices
45
40
35
ICTDI rank
30
25
20
15
Israel
10
Australia
5
United States
(r = .96)
0
0
10
20
30
40
Average rank on five indices
(DOI, NRI, ISI, DAI, Orbicam ranks from 39 nations, Minges 2005)
ICTDI rank 1997 versus 2004
200
180
160
140
Myanmar
2004
120
Morocco
Tajikistan
100
80
Brunei Darussalam
60
Jamaica
40
Saint Lucia
20
(r = .98)
Estonia
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
1997
120
140
160
180
200
Rank change between 1997 and
2004 versus GDP per capita
40
St. Lucia
Jamaica
30
Rank change, 1997-2004
Mexico
20
10
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
-10
Lebanon
-20
-30
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
-40
GDP per capita, 2004
Discontinuity: GDP/capita < US$14,000 (126 nations)
ICTDI versus GDP/capita, 2004
0.9
Luxembourg
0.8
0.7
Estonia
Czech Rep.
ICTDI
0.6
Ireland
0.5
French Polynesia
0.4
0.3
Equatorial Guinea
0.2
0.1
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
GDP per capita
Discontinuity: GDP < US$2,373 (42 nations)
.
ICTDI versus HDI, 2003
1.200
1.000
Oman
ICTDI
0.800
0.600
Haiti
Pakistan
0.400
0.200
0.000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
HDI
.
Discontinuity: HDI < .300 (91 nations)
0.9
Interregional IP bandwidth, 2005
Source: Telegeography, mid 2005
IP bandwidth 6x > voice and private line
Intraregional Internet bandwidth
as a percent of total international
bandwidth
Region
1999
2005
Africa
0%
1%
Asia
6%
35%
Europe
70%
72%
Latin America
5%
12%
US and Canada
28%
21%
Source: Global Internet Geography (2006)
Lorenz curve for Internet users
% cumulative share Intenet users
100
1997
80
2001
2004
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
% cumulative share population
80
100
Internet subscribers/100 inabitants
Income
Population
2003
2005
Low
2,338
.22
1.6
Lower-mid
2,430
2.92
6.2
Upper-mid
576
3.68
20.9
High
1,001
22.48
36.6
World
6,345
4.98
15
Unfortunately, “apples to oranges” comparison
The digital divide is pretty
much persistent, regardless of
how we measure it.
Digital access index 0 - .29
About the same yellow nations as on Landweber’s maps
Digital access index .7- 1
Digital access index .3 - .49
Digital access index .5 - .69
ITU Digital Access Index, 2003
What has been our policy?
PCR policy
• Privatization
• Competition
• Fair, independent regulation
PCR has been effective, but have we
reached a point of diminishing returns?
ICTDI rank changes 1997-2004,
all nations
WTO signatories
Non signatories
Signatories as of 1998
Average
-2.1
2.0
St. Dev.
9.8
11.0
n
92
88
ICTDI rank changes 1997-2004,
low-income nations
WTO signatories
Non signatories
Average
0.1
4.3
St. Dev.
9.3
10.8
n
17
37
ICTDI rank changes 1997-2004,
sub-Saharan Africa
WTO signatories
Non-signatories
Average
-0.8
-0.7
St. Dev.
8.4
6.8
n
11
30
ICTDI rank changes 1997-2004,
high-income
WTO signatories
Non-signatories
Average
0.9
5.1
St. Dev.
7.2
8.4
n
29
7
PCR has been effective,
but it has limits
Poverty limits the ability to attract
private capital
Low income nations
258.3
Lower middle income
32.2
Upper middle income
13.3
High income
1.7
Cost of 20 hours of (heterogeneous) access as
percent of average monthly GNI per capita (2003)
Limits to competition illustrated in
the United States
•
•
•
•
Failure of the 1996 Telecommunication Act
Duopoly at best
Low speed broadband
Rapidly dropping household penetration
rank
Limits to competition, e.g., U. S.
“All too often companies work to change the regulations,
instead of working to change the market.”
“Companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists and politicians,
instead of plant, people and customer service.”
“Too often [regulation is] used as a shield, to protect the status
quo from new competition - often in the form of smaller,
hungrier competitors -- and too infrequently as a sword -- to
cut a pathway for new competitors to compete by creating new
networks and services.”
William Kennard, FCC Chairman, 1967-2001
Beyond PCR policy – publicly
funded IP backbone networks
A grand challenge
Build national IP backbones
providing high-speed connectivity to
and a point of presence in every rural
village
Innovation and most investment to
be market-driven at the edges of the
network – in the villages.
A grand challenge
• Build national IP backbones providing
high-speed connectivity to and a point of
presence in every rural village
• Innovation and of the investment to be
market-driven at the edges of the
network – in the villages.
Rural emphasis because
• Urban areas are more able to attract
capital.
• “What makes Bombay overpopulated is the
impoverishment of the countryside, so that
a young man with dreams in his head will
take the first train to Bombay to live on the
footpath. If you fix the problems of the
villages, you fix, as a happy side effect, the
problems of the cities.”
Suketu Mehta, Maximum City, page 17
This challenge is daunting,
but feasible
We have demonstrated applications
Using old technology and slow connections
We have business models
(using old technology)
• Remote medicine
• Remote veterinary
• Remote agricultural
advice
• E-government
• E-mail
• Digital photography
• Desktop publishing
• Telephony
• Break even at
$75/mo.
N-Logue rural Kiosk
Pixelcorps
Training, leading to offshore media production
We have technology
Fiber backbone, wireless mesh, and POPs
We have precedent
United States Congressional Record of funding for the
initial Morse Telegraph
A more relevant precedent
NSFNet backbone – $130 million connected all universities
It is affordable
•
•
•
•
•
•
70,000 Km fiber core
30,000 Km fiber spurs
Wireless to fiber
Reach 400 million
Walking/bicycling distance
1 billion dollars
FiberAfrica, Rahul Tongia, CMU
Larry Press
[email protected]
bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/