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.

Comments

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesnt take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like its a peach of cake.

Re:Interesting

[eyenot]

The post is not original content.

laudable but..

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:laudable but..

[ThosLives]

Yes, this. And it's not even a question of "where's the revenue stream supposed to come" - it's more a question of "from where is the actual real wealth (e.g., food, material, new manufactured items, etc.) supposed to come?"

Internet access can only facilitate information transfer. It doesn't directly increase manufacturing output, it doesn't fix broken property ownership laws, and doesn't really remove barriers to entry to wealth-producing activities. (It does reduce barriers to entry to many service activities, but you can't eat, live in, wear, or use services to power your machines.)

Re:laudable but..

[Dunbal]

so they aren't stuck on islands of idiocy.

Like the internet is not an ocean of idiocy. Including your post. Do you even poor?

Re:laudable but..

[ShanghaiBill]

It doesn't directly increase manufacturing output

Actually, by automating supply chains, it does.

it doesn't fix broken property ownership laws

Actually, it does this too. By bypassing corrupt local officials, automating title searches, integrating maps, etc., countries with internet access have done much better than those without at reforming property ownership laws, and establishing clear title to land.

doesn't really remove barriers to entry to wealth-producing activities.

Actually, the internet helps a lot here too. Many localities have moved licenses for various wealth-producing activities online. Applying through a website is much faster, and less likely to be delayed by bribe seeking bureaucrats. Websites like ipaidabribe.com make reporting corruption much easier.

Re:laudable but..

[nukenerd]

By bypassing corrupt local officials, automating title searches, integrating maps, etc., countries with internet access have done much better than those without at reforming property ownership laws, and establishing clear title to land.

Nothing to do with the internet, not where I live (UK) anyway. Clear title to land was a project that resulted in establishing the Land Registry here, long before the internet. Things like that get done only if people, including the "officials" and other autorities want them to be done, interernet or not.

Websites ... make reporting corruption much easier.

No, because people get bored with stories of corruption, or it does not affect them, or they don't believe the stories, or there is too much noise on the internet for them to be heard.

For example I often take the opportunity in forums to point out the corruption in the UK annual car roadworthiness checks (the "MoT Test"). Makes no difference even though it affects millions of car owners; I am told I "don't understand". LoL, I was once the lead mechanic at a main car dealer and was involved in testing; we were not corrupt but I know places that are. If I reported them by name I'd probably be sued for libel and I can't afford the legal expense, if anyone took any notice at all.

Re:laudable but..

[ThosLives]

Actually, by automating supply chains, it does.

Remember, I said directly. You have to have a supply chain in order to automate it. The Internet cannot automate anything anyway - you have to have machines to automate. So while the 'net can connect existing machines, it cannot create new ones. That's what I meant by direct.

...countries with internet access have done much better than those without at reforming property ownership laws, and establishing clear title to land.

Property ownership is ultimately enforced by people - the internet, again, cannot directly improve this. It requires people cooperating. Now, maybe the internet helps people talk to cooperate, but if you have people with guns or bulldozers taking your land/structures, the internet isn't going to help you unless it notifies other people with guns to come help. So, again, an indirect effect.

Actually, the internet helps a lot here too. Many localities have moved licenses for various wealth-producing activities online...

Ok, I'll concede that point - the net can give people much more easy contact with people who have capital. But I think your example is flawed in that automated licenses only work when there are licenses to be had in the first place. Again, the internet cannot change or enforce laws; only people can do that.

fuck this

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit!!!!!!!!!

what is wrong with this place.

No nerd would do anything but laugh at that headline.

aka Facebook wants more subjects to datamine

[suss]

I don't see how anyone apart from facebook is going to get financially better from this.
Companies make statements like this, without actually backing it up with facts.

Sure it would

[Locke2005]

Only if you count Nigerian 419 scams as part of the global economy...

Despots Control Those Countries

[kenwd0elq]

Baloney. The 4+ billion people who don't already have internet access are primarily peasant farmers who are struggling to feed themselves, much less add anything to their national (or even local) 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. 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.

Probably half of those people would never be ALLOWED to connect to the internet, even if it were possible to provide access. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, many of the impoverished African kleptocracies... which of those governments would ever allow their subjects any information about a better way of life?

Re: Despots Control Those Countries

[WarJolt]

Other resources like water don't normally compete with Internet access. On the contrary, it can make it easier to get resources like food and water when you are connected.

  I went to a talk on villagecell and learned the largest use in developing countries use the Internet for facebook, but internet does opens up trade opportunities with neighboring villages.

Re:Despots Control Those Countries

[shawn2772]

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.

In education alone, the gains are huge.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Don't underplay how valuable the Internet is for education! For the extra education alone, the internet would be vital in places where people might not get a great primary education. If you could buy everyone on earth an encyclopedia set, we'd do it. Well the Internet is much more valuable than that thousands of times over.

Re:In education alone, the gains are huge.

[kaizendojo]

As someone who has spent the majority of my 30 + year IT career in K12 and Higher Ed marketplace, I have to remind folks that the Internet is not a magic teaching machine. It is just another tool, like a text book or a blackboard. Without competent educators and a lesson plan that utilizes the tool effectively, the Internet is just another way to keep kids occupied. All too often I see this. There are many teachers out there truly utilizing the Internet effectively and getting outstanding results, but only because they made the lesson plan the focus and not the technology.

How to monetize?

[Tokolosh]

6.7*10^12 / 4.1*10^9 = $1,634 per person. There is the incentive. Let's have the UN write each one of them a check for that amount and see what happens.

Or do you prefer to be paternalistic and do it for them? What does it cost to connect people who are not capable of doing it for themselves and who probably tolerate a government that keeps them that way.

All you need...

[110010001000]

All you need to accomplish it is to pay PriceWaterhouseCoopers $10 billion to manage the project. A small pittance! And you get $6.7 TRILLION back! Sounds like one of those Nigerian scams to me.

makes way too many assumptions

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:makes way too many assumptions

[wierd_w]

It may come as a surprise to you, but almost without exception, the "charitable donations" of corporations directly benefit the company in some financial capacity.

Take for instance, an endowment of this nature: The one who stands to benefit from a big increase in total economic activity is NOT any individual multinational corporation, but the world government who's citizens are getting increased service, because it directly adds to their market index rating, making them more important on the global market.

as such, a corporation can get the kind of exclusive deal they want, (hey, if I give your citizens Foo, will you give me a sweetheart deal on assessing tariffs, duties, and taxes? we're good buddies, right?) which then directly results in a fiscal profit for them over not doing it (if they chose not to "donate", they would still pay the normal rate on duties, tariffs, and taxes doing business in that country. The costs of the "donation" are less than the savings made on the sweetheart deal, ensuring garanteed profit.)

It is not because the corporation has suddenly developed a conscience and has some vestiage of humanitarian spirit lurking inside. it is always profit driven, due to their "fudiciary obligations."

So, I have no doubt that fuckerberg was hoping to make a profit by subsidizing internet access to rural people in india, that he could then get hooked on shitbook, and sell the personal information of for even more profit.

The problem becomes intractible when you consider this statistic is for GLOBAL economic activity, for extending access in ALL countries. That's a lot of sweetheart deals, and lots of assumptions.

55% of all statistics are made up

[mea2214]

That's a fact!

Pretty much

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Whaaat

[eyenot]

I thought all of these pie-in-the-sky, bubble-creating dot-commies had been effectively filtered out of the market by now.

Some comment below actually says that if you give the internet to some person who lives without electricity, clean water, food, literacy or rights, that the person will somehow be able to use it to obtain the clean water.

I mean, I guess it makes sense in a way: there's a new generation who did not already live through that awkward phase when the internet was the magical "information superhighway" that was going to transport perfection into everyone's life. You can't blame them for not knowing better when crooked corporate scammers pitch them that idea like it's fresh.

Global economic output?

[butzwonker]

Does that even mean anything?

How about looking at global income distribution, poverty levels, death rates and death causes, access to education and health care, ...

I'm wondering

[codeButcher]

I have two questions on my mind (that don't necessarily get answered by the article, or not in a credible fashion):
1. Do the connectees have control over how and when they are connected and to what subset of "services"? Or is that up to solely the connectors (sometimes a.k.a. Big Brother)?
2. Will those 6.7 billion USD be received by the connectees, the connectors, or the advertisers?

Re:Who exactly gets the trillions?

[nukenerd]

Who exactly gets the trillions[?]/p>

Zucherberg, Gates, Nadella, Page, Brin, Cook, Greenspan, ..... do I need to go on?