Slashdot Mirror
Connecting Everyone To Internet 'Would Add $6.7 Trillion To Global Economy' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A report, titled Connecting the world: Ten mechanisms for global inclusion, and prepared for Facebook by PwC, says that global economic output would increase by $6.7 trillion if internet access was brought to the 4.1 billion people in the world who do not currently have it. It's estimated that this would raise 500 million people out of poverty. The company behind the report says affordability, rather than infrastructure, is the main barrier to internet adoption in most areas. More than 90% of people live in areas where the infrastructure exists to get them online, but most of them can't afford to do so. The report describes a 500MB data plan that costs more than 5% of one's monthly income as "unaffordable." Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Philippines, for example, would need to cut the price of internet access by over 90% in order for 80% of their populations to get online. Improved technology, or even installing existing technology in developing nations, will be sufficient in bringing much of this cost reduction. Facebook's Internet.org project, aimed at partnering carriers in developing nations to give low-cost internet access, has been criticized for allowing users to access some websites, like Wikipedia and Facebook, without paying for the data they use. Others say such an approach is worth it in the long run. "The important thing here is to get things moving," says Jonathan Tate, technology consulting leader at PwC. The report' authors estimate that the last 500 million people to get online won't be able to rely on piecemeal improvements. Instead, they'll need new "disruptive technologies" being created by companies like Google, with its Project Loon plan to mount internet access points on balloons, and Facebook, with its solar-powered, laser-armed 4G drone called Aquila.
Lift 1/2 billion people out of poverty? How so. I realize it's a laudable goal but still I can't see how just having Internet access would do that. Yes people could get online educational access but where's the revenue stream supposed to come? There has to be infrastructure supporting this as well. Call me jaded but I don't think in and of itself would get rid of poverty.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
bullshit!!!!!!!!!
what is wrong with this place.
No nerd would do anything but laugh at that headline.
For real.
Assumptions this "study" makes that are deal killers:
1) The cost of connecting these people will be less than the revenue derived from their inclusion. (If it wasnt... why are we considering extending service to them again? Is it charity? Big business doesnt "do" charity.)
2) Having access to increased information sources will increase the rate that people leave impoverished conditions, and that this is a thing that big business can profit from. (how do you determine this, and even if true, how does increased income equality really translate to increased profits by big business, compared with the same increases their competitors will derive without having to pay for it? I remind you again, big business does not "do" charity.)
3) the increased intrinsic costs of providing data service at discounted prices to these people will be fully predictable, and will not denude the profitability their inclusion in e-commerce will have. (see 1 and 2 above-- again, big business does not "do" charity.)
Basically, the only way anything like this will gain traction is if you can prove this:
Being the first to provide access to these people means exclusive access to their wallets, which have money inside that you can then take, your competitors cannot, and the money you can take will be more than the cost of extending the service. Profit is garanteed.
That is by no means what the reality of this situation is. While all ships rise with a rising tide, the amount you rise compared to your competition is what really matters to big business. They dont want to help their competition rise higher than them, by being the ones who suffer the expense of adding the extra water. Big business does not do charity.
People who think that the really poor need Internet need to go see what "really poor" is actually like in the world. That is what happened with the Gates Foundation. Originally they were thinking along the lines of tech for 3rd world countries since both the Gates' are techies. So a perhaps apocryphal story but likely true is that Gates visited an African village and got shown their prized possession: A single light connected to their single power line. He realized then that what these people needed was things like refrigeration, not computers.
If you look at what the foundation does it matches that. While in the US they worry about things like emergency response, global libraries and so on in African they worry about things like agricultural development and vaccination. People don't have time to worry about higher level needs like access to global information if they are dying of disease and starvation. You have to deal with the more fundamental problems first.
A good basic map of this concept is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The idea is basically that humans have multiple levels of needs, but not all are equal. We spend our effort meeting the lower level ones and only once they are satisfactorily met do we spend much time on the higher ones.
Baloney. The 4+ billion people who don't already have internet access are primarily peasant farmers who are struggling to feed themselves
And the Internet would give them access to information that would enable their farms to be more productive, and information that would enable them to understand market pricing so they wouldn't be ripped off by middlemen when they sell their surplus, among many, many other benefits.
much less add anything to their national (or even local) economies.
Increasing the productivity of farms will add to local, and even national, economies.
They don't have the tools or the knowledge nor the willingness to learn anything that would allow them to jump to first-world levels of productivity.
There's no need for them to jump to first-world levels of productivity. Just increasing their own productivity by 20% will make huge differences.
In most places, they have neither reliable electrical power nor reliable potable water, and those folks need clean water a WHOLE lot more than they need internet access.
To get power and clean water, what they mostly need is to increase productivity and therefore income enough that they have the capital needed for those sorts of improvements. The Internet can help them do that.