UN Tech Group Finds Most Expensive Broadband

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UN Tech Group Finds Most Expensive Broadband

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday September 5, 2010 @05:26AM from the golden-dial-up dept.

destinyland writes "In the Central African Republic, broadband internet service costs 3891% of the average monthly income. 'Put another way, a month's broadband service costs more than three years' average wages in the country,' notes one technology blog, 'compared with less than two hours' earnings in Macau.' A United Nations' technology group released the figures in a new report in advance of a September 19 summit on the digital divide in developing countries. ('We are trying to avoid a broadband divide,' said Dr. Hamadoun Toure, the secretary general of the UN's International Telecommunications Union.) Their agency noted that the rate for broadband penetration is below 1% in many poor countries, with monthly costs higher than the average monthly income. 'By contrast,' notes the BBC, 'in the world's most developed economies, around 30% of people have access to broadband at a cost of less than 1% of their income.' And the report also estimates that there are 5 billion cellphones in the world — though some people may own more than one."

32 of 89 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well... by pseudofrog · 2010-09-05 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

"And the report also estimates that there are 5 billion cellphones in the world — though some people may own more than one."

Yeah -- I'm pretty sure that worldwide ownership rate of cell phones is somewhat less than 73%.
1. Re:Well... by anguirus.x · 2010-09-05 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "And the report also estimates that there are 5 billion cellphones in the world — though some people may own more than one."
  Yeah -- I'm pretty sure that worldwide ownership rate of cell phones is somewhat less than 73%.
  Yeah, the number of humans who are dead and gone now without a cell phone brings it down some.
2. Re:Well... by jmoen · 2010-09-05 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I have been to many african countries and the only way the are able to communicate with work, family and friends is through mobile phone. There is no infrastructure for wired communications and the postal service is almost non existant or cost a furtune (also there is a lack of places where you can pick up the mail). You can be in the middle of nowhere and you find a mobile phone mast and people with mobile phones. Many of them do in fact have several phones, one on each major provider, as the providers not always peer with each other or the peering is defunc. Mobile serivce is cheap as long as you call people on same carrier, thus another reason for more than one phone.
3. Re:Well... by clarkkent09 · 2010-09-05 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It might be. Cell phones are a great example of how developing world can use technology to leapfrog certain stages of development that they missed out on. Countries without functioning telecommunications infrastructure can (contract foreign companies to) slap a bunch of cell phone masts around the major population centers and combined with cheap handsets practically overnight you got 80% of your population connected. Of course there is a bit more to it, but it's a lot easier than wiring up the country.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
4. Re:Well... by sznupi · 2010-09-05 06:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  At the end of 2007, the world had 3.2 billion mobile subscribers (that's the metric used here, active numbers - it's damn easy to determine); at the end of 2009 - 4.6 billion. It's quite plausible there would be 5 by now.
  Also, while indeed some people have more than one number / some places more than 100% penetration - in many developing ones a group of poeple (say, a family) shares one mobile phone. That's an explicitly stated reason why Nokia puts, into their lowest end (on S30 - 1202, 1280, 1616, etc.) mobile phones, few separate / switchable contact lists & cost trackers.
  The above two factors cancel each other out a bit; I wouldn't be even too surprised if an actual number of people using mobile phones was slightly higher than the number of accounts.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
5. Re:Well... by sznupi · 2010-09-05 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Though the carrier issue is also quite often (probably more often) dealt with by carrying more than one simcard & one phone... Then there are dualsim handsets.
  Those mobile phones (and mostly so called "feature phones") are also increasingly a way of accessing the web (conveniently, last three reports are about Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America) - IIRC already close to 30% of Facebook usage is from mobiles. After looking at State of the Mobile Web reports from Opera (which include most popular sites per country), it's quite possible that some notable part of those ~30% is from places where it's often the only frequent method of access. And despite a lot of those users being rather frugal with the amount of browsing / data transferred, Opera Mini is still the #1 mobile web browser by worldwide website stats.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
6. Re:Well... by grcumb · 2010-09-05 08:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah -- I'm pretty sure that worldwide ownership rate of cell phones is somewhat less than 73%.
  Not by much.
  I work in ICT development and advocacy in the Pacific, and write about it occasionally. I can think of several countries off the top of my head where teledensity has risen by orders of magnitude within 12-18 months of new mobile services being rolled out.
  In Vanuatu, where I live, we went from about 20,000 active accounts to 100,000 within 9 months. Unimpressed? The entire population of the country is 235,000.
  I predict that there will come a time when the idea of 73% coverage of all of humanity doesn't raise eyebrows the way it does now. I predict that this will happen within 5-10 years.
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
7. Re:Well... by sjames · 2010-09-05 09:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is that wiring up 80% of the country would create a thriving local economy and enable inexpensive communication while bring in a foreign company to throw up a few masts just exports more of what little wealth exists. That's why, in spite of the opportunity to leapfrog whole generations of tech, much of Africa remains undeveloped.
Um...yeah. by DurendalMac · 2010-09-05 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's going to be pretty difficult to proliferate anything through much of Africa with ultracorrupt asshats running many of the countries, not to mention other ultracorrupt asshats trying to overthrow the current ultracorrupt asshats in power. You'd think that they'd stop caring about goddamned broadband and start worrying about actually getting a stable infrastructure first. Yes, I realize that the guys talking about broadband are part of a subgroup within a much broader one, but still, focus on what you can actually accomplish, not something that's going to take a lot more work in other areas to become even remotely feasible.

Then again, Nigeria seems to be doing just fine with internet access...
1. Re:Um...yeah. by Sarten-X · 2010-09-05 05:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  My experience is that Africa is concerned with looking modern more than actually being modern.
  The average rural African citizen hears from the politicians that cell phones and internet are the indications of modern life, so they support the "ultracorrupt asshats" who promise to bring them such things. They manage to live their lives without decent infrastructure already, so why bother building more?
  Clean water? There's a stream nearby that only has six ducks defecating next to it. That's good enough.
  A sewage system? There's a nice ditch that's cleaned by floods at least once a year. That's good enough.
  Televisions? Yes! America has them, and Barack Obama is going to buy one for every American! We need them, too!
  As awful as it sounds, I think this will eventually lead to a fully modern infrastructure, but it'll be different from the Western norm. In Ghana, one of the largest employers is the telephone company, who builds cell towers in the middle of nowhere connected via satellite. That means a push for service roads, stable electricity, and a network of independent distributors of pay-as-you-go credits. It's certainly not fast, but the trickle-down economy is working a little.
  (While volunteering in Ghana, I was actually told "You are American? You have Obama! He will buy a TV for all Americans!")
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
2. Re:Um...yeah. by m50d · 2010-09-05 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What's going to reduce corruption and produce stable infrastructure? Democracy, an interested populace, and prosperity through economic growth. All things that getting broadband out there is going to help with.
  Sure, you could try and bring them up by going through the exact same development path we did - but that's going to leave those nations permanently x years behind. The best way to bring a society forward rapidly is investment in science and technology, and there's no sense going for anything but the best.
  
  --
  I am trolling
3. Re:Um...yeah. by DesScorp · 2010-09-05 06:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  While volunteering in Ghana, I was actually told "You are American? You have Obama! He will buy a TV for all Americans!"
  Why were you surprised at this? You've got Americans thinking he'll pay their bills for them too.
  
  --
  Life is hard, and the world is cruel
4. Re:Um...yeah. by TheLink · 2010-09-05 06:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'm sure he doesn't mind buying _a_ TV for all Americans.
  
  Teaching them how to share better is the hard part ;).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
5. Re:Um...yeah. by whitehaint · 2010-09-05 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Consider that Europeans and Asians had nobody to hold their hand when they developed technological and infrastructure improvements. Perhaps Africa is substantially lacking because they do not have the abstract thought needed for these improvements? I recall an effort in the DCR to protect some gorillas. The reserve officers relied on repeater radios, which were promptly looted for whatever was in the shacks. Bring broadband to the area? Prepare to replace lines constantly.
6. Re:Um...yeah. by funkatron · 2010-09-05 07:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Sharing is for commies, he'd never get it past your other party.
  
  --
  "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
7. Re:Um...yeah. by Sarten-X · 2010-09-05 13:20 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  My general experience applies generally. My specific example from Ghana is specific.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
8. Re:Um...yeah. by PGaries · 2010-09-05 19:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A more reasonable interpretation of "I won't have to worry about..." is that that's a figure of speech and not literal. The idea seems to be that Obama would increase people's standards of living by fixing the economy, rampant corporate greed, overpriced health care, etc. that contribute to keeping the poor poor. (She's probably a little too optimistic though, considering her statements in retrospect and two years into the Obama administration.)
Percentage of average monthly income is not fair by msobkow · 2010-09-05 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think it's at all fair to compare prices based on average monthly income in a country. If the average income is mere dollars per day or per month, how can you possibly expect internet access to be within means? It's like complaining that the average New Yorker/Manhattanite can't afford a car because the parking costs almost as much as their rent!

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
average monthly income by tomhath · 2010-09-05 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

3891% of the average monthly income
Given that the monthly income is roughly $50, I doubt a lack of broadband is what keeps them up at night.
1. Re:average monthly income by Kenja · 2010-09-05 05:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But without the internet, how will they know what nerds think about political issues?
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
2. Re:average monthly income by hedwards · 2010-09-05 06:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Monthly income isn't the issue that people think it is. It's just a number, the question though is what does it get you and what do you do with it? While generally in parts of the world where incomes are low like that there are the other problems as well, it's hardly a hard link. For example with a tax rate of about half when municipal taxes and national taxes are taken into account, Sweden looks a lot worse with respect to income figures than it really is. Mostly because a lot of the things that we in the US have to pay for as individuals gets covered through taxation.
  
  The problem is that if it's not already the case, it will be the case in the near future that to be competitive you have to have some sort of internet access, and eventually some sort of broad band. It's like education in a way, if you don't have it you're just going to fall further behind until something remedies the situation.
Apples to oranges^H^H^H^H^H^H^H spaceships by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-05 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

There are many things more accessible in the developed world than the developing world. Oh, such as food, clean water, medicine, clothing, shelter, literacy-level education.
Yes, broadband is nice, and (in developed) countries plays a role at improving human rights (through emporewment of individual citizens to read and share information, both through official channels and outside them).
But in the poorest countries, things are different. Massively accessible broadband would not improve jack squat until people can actually read and write, until they are not dying of hunger and disease. Any investing in broadband infrastructure would be a money hole which would only benefits the pockets of those in power (who undoubtedly will take a graft in exchange for permission of setting up the infrastructure).
Solve the basics, like food and water, before you go hi-tech, mmmk?
1. Re:Apples to oranges^H^H^H^H^H^H^H spaceships by Thing+1 · 2010-09-05 10:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But in the poorest countries, things are different. Massively accessible broadband would not improve jack squat until people can actually read and write, until they are not dying of hunger and disease.
  
  I wonder ... perhaps their governments could create some videos, in the native language, to teach skills? This would not require the population to be able to read and write. (Getting to the site with the instructional videos, though, might require a bit of effort... Like perhaps creating an XO-like device, which when first started will show a video describing its operation.)
  The idea being, they can use this advanced technology to bootstrap themselves into the present, or even future, instead of taking the same slow laborious path that we took. Shoulders of giants, and all that.
  In fact, the skills that are taught in these videos could even be "reading and writing," helping the citizenry climb up to first-world levels of technology that much sooner.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
What a useless study. by SecurityGuy · 2010-09-05 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Countries with devastating poverty have a lot of people who can't afford broadband internet for the computer they can't afford to own that runs on electricity they don't have in the "house" that we wouldn't consider a house.
Perhaps we should start with something more basic, like access to clean water, absence of marauding militias, a level of education somewhere above shockingly bad, etc.
Misplace Priority by argontechnologies · 2010-09-05 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhaps the developed world should consider that when you can't feed yourself or your family, broadband is not really that high a priority. If you also factor in the illiteracy rate, it becomes even less of a priority. The things these countries need are much more basic and critical to survival. Clean safe water, renewable, self sustained sources of food. To hell with broadband, and I run an ISP.
1. Re:Misplace Priority by Jeremy+Erwin · 2010-09-05 06:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you also factor in the illiteracy rate, it becomes even less of a priority.
  The literate can get by with unicode. The illiterate need h.264.
Exactly by DesScorp · 2010-09-05 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

3891% of the average monthly income
Given that the monthly income is roughly $50, I doubt a lack of broadband is what keeps them up at night.
Thank you. You've got people saying things like "We've got to get broadband to the third world so they can catch up!". Broadband? Many of these people don't even have clean water supplies, or a house that isn't made of trash or mud. Just how much is a freakin' broadband connection going to help them?

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
1. Re:Exactly by sznupi · 2010-09-05 08:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You merely describe one of the extremes...
  In many so called developing places basics are covered decently.
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
2. Re:Exactly by Kjella · 2010-09-05 08:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you go to the very bottom of the list, yes. If you look at the full executive summary (PDF), the top 115 countries are doing quite ok with fixed broadband being up to 21% of average monthly income. The last of those are countries like Philippines, Vietnam and Morocco. Of the remaining 45, most are dirt poor mostly having a GDP below $1000/person and the bottom 15 countries have an average of $440/person. Also some of those at the bottom are in addition to being poor also island states, the domestic prices are much lower than an Internet connection requiring sea cable or satellite.. And the situation is improving, the title of chart 4 is "Fixed broadband Internet prices are dropping sharply but remain unaffordable in many developing countries".
  What I got out of the summary is that you can get broadband at somewhat affordable prices in relatively many countries compared to what I thought. Also that being a poor country in a relatively less poor area helps for broadband prices. Most of the countries that really suck for broadband are those south of Sahara, apparently there's no short way to hook up to a rich country's backbone nearby, while those in Central America and SE Asia mostly manage to hook up to a decent country. You can call it a digital divide here, but it seems to have a physical form very much like a desert...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Percentage of average monthly income is not fai by Kjella · 2010-09-05 07:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, without getting into too much detail it depends on whether broadband is a tradable or non-tradable good. A tradable good is something like say gold - worth pretty much the same all over the world, because otherwise there'd be arbitrage. A non-tradable good would be something like getting a haircut, which is why most can afford to get haircuts despite living on mere dollars a day. The wages are much lower so the prices are much lower.
A lot of it is equipment, but a lot of it is also people to lay down cables, wire houses, set up wireless antennas, do support, maintenance, configuration, billing and so on. If you didn't take into consideration local costs, you'd reach a lot of crazy conclusions. And regarding the things they do have to buy, it's profit-maximizing to sell cheaper in poor countries than in rich countries as long as it doesn't hurt the other sales. That is why for example you can find a cheap Chinese or Thai-only phone, because it's only usable in that country and won't hurt your US and other English-speaking sales. I'm sure you could make some sort of deal or to purchase obsolete equipment from a western ISP for cheap.
All in all, I think it's better to compare to monthly income because they could probably sell it for considerably less and still break even. A far bigger issue I think is penetration, the cost of building out a network is not linear to the number of people on it. Even if only 20% of a town wants broadband you have to wire almost as much as if 80% would want it. That is why you often se rates in third world countries that are much, much higher than what I get even on an absolute scale, despite that everything should be cheaper to do down there.
At least here in Norway it's about $40 for basic broadband (1-2 Mbit), $60 (1% of average full time income) for medium broadband (5-10 Mbit) while about $80 will get you a top line (20-30 Mbit). Almost everyone who wants it has broadband, which really keeps the costs per customer down. Sure it could probably get even cheaper but compared to many poorer countries we pay little and get a lot. Things like broadband thrive on volume of many people signing up.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Percentage of average monthly income is not fai by sznupi · 2010-09-05 07:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Prices in a given place, in relation to the average monthtly income, is all that matters to the poeple in the end...
But even if you want to look at absolute numbers - apparently the average monthly income is in the range of tens of USD. You certainly wouldn't buy broadband at close to 40x of that amount, too. "High tech" stuff, of various kind, is typically most expensive at such places by all conceivable measures..

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:completely bogus standard by sjames · 2010-09-05 09:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's the only meaningful measure. For example, if we all made a million dollars a day, we wouldn't mind much if a decent meal cost $1000/person. OTOH, we would mind very much if a decent meal cost $0.05/person but we only made $0.01/day.
Yes, what they can afford would not be anywhere near enough for providers working at 1st world rates, but if you consider that those 3rd world wages are also coming from 1st world employers you start to see just how bad a deal they get.