Slashdot Mirror
$200 Net PC to Close Brazil's Digital Divide
Alexsander writes: "As announced by Pimenta da Veiga, minister of communications, a Net PC costing R$ 400 (around US$ 200) will be available in 120 days. It targets low-income users, and a 24-month paying plan will be considered. The computer will be a Pentium 500 MHz, with keyboard, mouse, NIC, 56 Kbps modem, 14" display, 64 Mb RAM and no hard disk (16 Mb flash RAM instead). The main-board architecture (developed by UFMG) will be open, allowing any company to make it. It will run Linux (probably Conectiva) with KDE, KOffice and Konqueror." The Brazilian government notice is available, as are pictures of the device. Imagine: a government doing something to help poor people get access to the internet.
I agree that the Internet will not end poverty. However, I think the Brazilian taxpayers are not wasting the money spent on this particular program.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
The Brazilian government needs to start a massive program of internet cultural literacy for it's citizens before they step onto the info super-highway, in order that they understand the existing culture, and don't destory the existing culture. This program will consist of:
Then, and only then, will Brazilians be able to understand the internet.
Only then
You do have a point and this is quite likely. At the same time
Who said that there will be any loss. An IDT winchip or K6-2+ based board with the worst type "fry your brain" 14in CRT with 16M flash, 64M memory and a linmodem will cost exactly there. Bulk prices of course. And even if not picked up by the masses it will still make a good terminal for schools if the linmodem is replaced by LAN.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Another interesting example is the Bangladeshi woman who used microcredit to buy a cell phone, which she rents out to her neighbors. Not a big business by our standards, but one that has a drastic effect on her and her customers.
The importance of both examples is that they show impoverished, even illiterate people gaining access to information. For people like this, information is power, money, and safety. A weather report pulled off a US Navy web site can mean life or death for a fisherman. Being able to talk to a guest-worker family member means their remittances don't get ripped off by go-betweens. There are no end of consequences.
The best thing about these programs is the way they promote mutual aid and collective responsibility. Microloans are administered by peer groups that make sure the recipient has realistic goals and plans. Groups that chip in to buy a computer are going to be personally involved in how it is used -- no dusty impulse purchase this!
__________________
1) The US doesn't have the largest percentage of people online (I believe that is Sweden)
2) 98% of American households own a color TV. 91% own a car. 84% have a VCR. 74% have cable TV. 66% own two color TVs. 44% own a computer.
3) PeoplePC sells a brand-name computer, on-site service, unlimited Internet access and a home page for $24.95 per-month over three years. If you can afford cable TV, you can afford a computer.
4) But if you can't afford a computer, you can browse the Net at most libraries, or pay-per-use at Kinkos.
I know a Salvadoran familiy in Washington, DC, that makes most of its money from making plantain empanadas for a local pupusaria. They have purchased a 486 computer for their daughter, and she uses AOL. They also have a large TV with surround-sound speakers. Probably the worst thing about their lives is the crime around where they live, but they prefer to be living around other Salvadorans, and they can't afford to move into a suburban McMansion yet.
The "Digital Divide" is much more about individual priorities than economics in the US.
I agree that the internet is no more the answer to poverty than a library card is the answer to illiteracy. But it can help, give incentive to work for the future, rather than perpetuate the status quo. The internet is only part of the answer. Education is another very important part. The internet can give us information, but most importantly it gives us communication. Communication is an empowering technology, it enables people to see beyond their locale.
If a farmer has information about the weather, he can better plan his planting and harvesting. A factory worker can search for a better job. A merchant can search for the best wholesaler for the wares he sells. A craftsman can find out how much the things he creates are actually worth, and price them accordingly, rather than trust the middleman who only has his own bottom line in mind.
If you're going to give the poverty stricken anything, give them opportunity. That's what this cheap internet terminal can give. Viewing a computer as a luxury relegates the computer to the level of television, a one way medium. But the real power of the internet is that even though the bandwidth is largely one way (to the user) there is still a channel out (to the world). You can just spectate, but you have the opportunity to participate, and it is up to the individual to choose.
The digital divide isn't about 'computers are a luxury' and 'I have Internet but I can't afford food'. The digital divide is a growing contributing factor to social exclusion. Social exclusion is about entire communities of individuals who do not have the choices in life (education, jobs and so on) that are available to wealthier communities.
Computer literacy has been growing in importance for quite a while and the Internet appears to have accelerated the process by simply making more people computer literate. If you have no access to computers then you are being denied more than just the opportunity to natter about Star Wars on Slashdot - you are being denied basic skills training.
The effects are currently minimal but are guaranteed to grow. For many many children, computer literacy could be the differentiating factor that (a) gives them the incentive to keep going to school and (b) gets them a job when they leave.
Brazil is by no means far behind the technological curve. A glut of free Internet providers appeared in Rio towards the end of 1999, only months behind the UK. The problem, as people have mentioned, is that it is still out of the financial reach of the majority.
There is a heavy emphasis on extra-curricular education in Brazil - generally paid courses outside school hours. As in America, those in Brazil most aggressively tackling the 'Digital Divide' are the NGOs, who give courses for free. The equipment generally comes entirely from donations and the staff tend to be volunteers. CCDIA is the one I work with, but there are many more. This government scheme could give critical mass to the projects which are offering free courses to those who can't afford to pay.
I would encourage every Slashdot reader in every country to find a local project where they can help - the first-world has social problems too!
Although it is commendable, I don't think this new computer will help that much.
I'm Brazilian and as such I can tell you: most of Brazil's population will not be able to buy this computer. They wouldn't have the $200, or the telephone line, or the money to pay the phone bill. Pimenta da Veiga is actually helping Brazil's lower middle class.
What they should do is start a real and serious project to connect all schools to the Internet. Public schools in Brazil don't even have computers, let alone computers connected to the Internet.
First of all, some Brasilians KNEW all the console games, understand the Internet, etc, despite of the comment of Hairy_Potter. What we see here is only marketing from our government. A great percentage of our country can ever read portuguese (I'm trying English! =o), what about get an Internet surfer ?!?! We need first to get BASIC education. To the masses, so they can THINK. All this money should be used to give the homeless a chance to go to school, get a job. Just my brasilian opinion.
According to Library of Congress Country Studies the average monthly earnings of [Brazilians is] US$211, and of this, in 1990, 60% of the nation was making less than that.
So while it is encouraging to finally see a country try to get it's nation online (although, IIRC, wasn't there a country with a traveling "Internet boat" and "Internet vans" prior to this?), you really have to realize that w/o the 24-mo paying plan, this is still nothing more than excess legislation.
Information is the catalyst for revolution
I loved your comment by the way, it made me smile already this morning.
Does anyone else see the irony in producing computers that people can get for 200 dollars so that they can close the "digital gap"? I mean, come on, if they can't afford a 500$ computer and a telephone line, they are probably poor enough that they live in substandard housing and/or recieve poor medical attention and/or have crappy schools and/or live on a poor diet and/or etc. etc.
a list of things a thousand times long and each infinitely more powerful than being able to watch pr0n online. Are we to believe that these people will get their 200$ computers that will only allow them access to the web and email and this will solve the rest of their problems? And don't forget, we are talking about Brazil, for the love of pete, they have much more important issues that internet access.
I think some brazilian politian has a buddy who stands to make a crapload off of this.
The other point is, who is paying for this. If the government is sucking up the "loss" in the sales, where is that money coming from, taxxed people? So now you will take other people's money away so that less fortunate won't fall behind on the latest issue of "the Onion" and can keep up with slashdot? WTF?
If an american politician suggested we take money from the rich to buy Power Ranger toys for the poor, or rather, make them available cheaper to the poor, don't you think it would be stopped?
This is sheer stupidity. Folks who are so scared of being thought of as back-woods or less than first world because they aren't all trapped by AOL yet and aren't berated with banner ads for $hit they will never be able to afford that they'll sink valuable resources into a worthless effort such as this. It's a damn shame.
-- there is no point in pulling the pud... if you do it right.
Would public schools be able to afford this computer along with a telephone line?
In that case, this project could be a success in that respect.
With the current shambolic state of education in many places and the huge lack of opportunities for many people, every little bit we can do helps. Otherwise we'll end up losing out to countries which have social programs to try and help the poor, rather than ignoring them as an inevitable consequence of a small part of the population having vast resources
;)
This (and the main slashdot story) seems to assume that the main obstacle to deliverance from low income is simply access to a computer. This is silly, perfectly adequate computers for becoming extremely employable can be already had for just about free (think 486-66 with 16MB ram, 500MB drive, and 14" tube) here in the U.S. Notice we still have poor people.
It has not been my experience that this is the obstacle. Rather, drug abuse, alcohol addiction, chronic bad decision making, illness, immaturity, family of origins, and the like set up high obstacles to overcome. Some people don't, won't, or can't put in the time, blood, sweat and tears to overcome the issues they face.
Design a government program to solve these problems and you will overcome poverty. I suspect the solution to this problem is slightly harder then finding the highest prime number, and slightly easier then the grand unification theory. Not to say we should not try, but don't hold your breath and don't expect a simple solution. And good luck.
In the meantime, the most effective change agent I have seen (other then a person deciding for themselves to do what they have to do come hell or high water) is in the context of committed and genuine relationship between individuals, not by large government programs. I don't contribute to charities that have more then 15% overhead... I wish I could direct the fortune I am paying in taxes that are supposed "help people" to channels that have a less abysmal success rate and a more reasonable overhead.
IMHO of course
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
really, i'm tired of hear this bullshit of my countryman, weeping about how poor and ignorant Brasil is. the litany (or opera bouffe) is everytime the same: "Let me weep over my cruel fate, And that I long for freedom!" (Rinaldo, Haendel). I know that the brazilian economy is fucked up, but times are changing. this last push of brazilian government is very laudable. you know, open source is a integrant part of social forms! this push will help a lot the work of people like Rodrigo Baggio. Poor peolple from outskirts are longing for rescue their aplomb! I know that! I give all my old computers to local rappers and I can tell you: their very eyes shine before an old box carring a cyrix dx2/66...
On a differnt note, there once was a planet that tried to seperate their bright and creative people from their hair dressers, telephone sanitation people and types like that ....
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A lot of people are complaining about the US government not doing enough for people. Someone was talking about a house having a dozen computers and how they don't need that many (like that person knows what their current situation is). I have news for you people who think taxing the heck out of some people and giving free computers to others WON'T HELP.
Giving people handouts don't pull people out of poverity. That's been proven many times during the past few decades. What does work? Local communities pulling together and helping local people who need the help. The Federal government shoving free computers everywhere doesn't help.
So instead of whining and complaining that "rich" people need to pay higher taxes to help "poor" people, go out and use your technological backgrounds and go volunteer somewhere.
I would like to know something. For all you people who say the Federal government should raise taxes and all that, what do you think of President Bush's plan for faith-based groups helping their local communities? Are you saying "Great, they are finalky doing something that may help?" Or are you saying, "Separation of Church and State!!! This is a horrible ideal!!! The religous right are trying to impose their values on us!!!!" The question (IMO) is to tell the difference between people who really want to help verses the people who are socialists and just talking the political talk (I'm not saying Socialism is evil - although I personally don't agree with it).
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
There have been a few "anti Digital Divide" posts in this discussion already, but most of them revolve around the "computer is a luxury" issue, and that you shouldn't go around buying them for people for that reason. I don't buy into that logic exactly, but it's not far off the mark.
The real reason that Internet access can't be considered a panacea for poverty is because, regardless of what the New Economy blowhards tell you, the average Joe can't use a computer to generate wealth. You need to be able to use it to create something that people are willing to shell out bucks for - a video game, or spreadsheet programs, or at the very least, your own services (presumably using a program written by someone else).
The real economic impact of the Internet is that it has allowed businesses to leverage resources they already had in different ways. Unfortunately, the truly poor in Brazil don't have any resources. This is what makes folks who get breathless about E-Bay ending poverty so funny. You can't make any money at all off E-Bay, unless you have something to sell. Otherwise, you might as well be pr0n trolling.
There's a very real chance that small businesses in Brazil will be able to do something useful with this, assuming someone is smart enough to capitalize on their newfound net access, and can effectively target them. If the government is smart in how they distribute them, they may even be able to steer their citizens towards educational resources for their kids. But to the average guy squatting in a shanty town not far outside Rio, Internet access means (with apologizes to Buffy the Vampire Slayer) "pictures of pretty things I can't have."
-----
"You owe me a case of beer. Sucka'."
In order for Moore's law to dictate the half life of the "digital divide" it would need to say something about the rate of decline in retail price of computers. Unfortunately, that is not what Moore's law talks about: it says that the feature geometry of integrated circuits doubles every 18 months, which is only one factor in the retail price of products which use integrated circuits.
The actual half-life of the "digital divide," as measured by the price for an entry level home computer, has been declining steadily since the mid-'80s, but not by 50% every 18 months. While you may be able to purchase twice as much of any given computer resource (memory, storage, instructions-per-second) every 18 months, this is not due to a decrease in system price, but to an increase in system performance, while prices stayed, largely, fixed. The actual rate of decline in the price of computer systems is more like 10% per year, over the past 15 years, which makes the half-life of the digital divide something more like 5-years (especially when we also account for wage and price inflation).
With a half-life of 5-years, the "digital divide" will be essentially gone (less than 10% of the world population will be offline) by 2050. Long before then, however, the "digital divide" will have lost any political power it may currently have: by 2010 we can expect that less than one quarter of the world population will be offline.
hmmm, well lets see what a search on yahoo brings up... for "community computer access"
search results
it seems to me that there are a TON of non profit organizations throughout the united states with the sole purpose of providing cheap computers and cheap/free internet access and training to individuals.
now, considering most are non-profit, that means that they get tax incentives from the government, federal grants and subsidies, as well as local government incentives.
now how can you say something like your above statement?