by Howard Fienberg
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) has declared the "digital divide" to be "one of the single most important issues that will determine the destiny of the American people" and the Rev. Jesse Jackson has called it a "classic form of apartheid." Yet in May, following the release of the Commerce Department study A Nation Online, the Bush administration proposed eliminating two federal programs aimed at alleviating that divide because they no longer appeared necessary. Dozens of interest groups expressed outrage that, just as progress was being made, the government was turning its back on the problem. But what exactly is the digital divide and are these programs actually helping to address it?
The term "digital divide" was first coined in "Falling Through the Net," a 1998 Commerce Department study, to describe the gaps in computer ownership and usage and Internet usage among various racial/ethnic/income groups. Then and now, higher-income earners, Whites and Asian-Americans are more likely to use computers and the Internet than lower-income earners and Blacks and Hispanics.
So it seems that there is still a need for the threatened
programs. The Department of Education's Community Technology Centers Program
helps finance computer activity centers for youth and adult education and the
Commerce Department's Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) provides money
and services to "organizations that need a technology boost,"
according to The New York Times. But while the former seems tailored to
address the digital divide, the latter does not. TOP is aimed at
organizations, not individuals. That is not to say it is worthless. Several
rural health services have taken advantage of the program for
videoconferencing with isolated out-patients. The Times also highlighted a
Into the program's defense last week came a report from
the Digital Empowerment Campaign -- a coalition of groups ranging from the
AFL-CIO and the NAACP to the American Library Association. Activist Phil
Shapiro argued to the New York Times that progress would be lost if
government financing ended. "If you water a plant and then decide to
stop watering it," Mr. Shapiro said, "the result is the same as if
you never watered it in the first place." However, these are not the
only two programs supposedly dedicated to alleviating the digital divide; a
lot of other folks are watering the plants as well. Many corporations donate
computers to their employees and to local schools and organizations. Many
charities work to bring computers and the Internet to the masses. Most
schools and libraries provide access.
And yet, the Digital Empowerment Campaign still worries that "workers in low-skill jobs are not online because they don't use the tools at work and can't afford them at home." Hard as it may seem for the Campaign to believe, many jobs and businesses have absolutely no need for a computer. Shockingly, many ordinary people have also never wanted or needed a computer or the Internet. This is best illustrated in the dreaded "age gap": Pew surveys of Internet use have found that, while nearly 80 percent of people between the ages of 18-29 use it, barely 15 percent of the 65+ crowd are users. Many more people of varying ages can be classified as "Internet dropouts" -- people who once used the Internet at home, but no longer do. Some of them stopped because they got to use it at work or school, and that was enough. A minority decided it was too expensive to maintain. But most simply became disillusioned or lost interest. As much as the Internet bustles with useful and important information, it is equally rife with misinformation, spam and smut. As many educators and schools have discovered, the un- or under-educated do not seem to learn much from it that is helpful.
But if all Americans wanted to be computer/Internet users,
could they afford it? A grown adult, struggling to make ends meet, might
still be able to afford a computer and Internet connection, if he or she
wanted to do so. One of the great ironies of
A reasonably-powerful computer can be had for a few hundred dollars -- and a used one for even less. Internet access at home -- since the freebie-dot-com-bomb -- is rarely free, but can be had for a handful of dollars a month. Faster connections are not out of reach: by early last year, 11 percent of homes had a high-speed broadband connection.
But that does not impress the Campaign. It says that home
access opens up the "true Internet benefits" and that education
programs convince people to "bring the technology home." Donna L.
Hoffman, a professor of marketing and e-commerce at
So marketing is the issue? Perhaps we should stop to consider to what benefit this marketing expert is pitching the digital divide programs. Are they for disadvantaged citizens missing out on the benefits of the digital age? Or are they just to fill the coffers of hardware, software and telecommunications corporations?
See the original: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=071502B
return to Howard Fienberg's page