Slashdot Mirror
UN Tech Group Finds Most Expensive Broadband
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."
"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%.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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