On page 55 of Jame's article, he criticizes Compaine for believing that the digital divide is dissappearing at such a rate that Americans need not worry about it any more. James brings up Compain's argument that the lack of ownership of computers should cause no more concern than the lack of ownership of an automobile, both of which are important. I feel that James was right to point out this flawed argument; Compaine gives the impression that the problem of not owning an automobile, which was of highest concern in the mid 1900s, worked itself out naturally, without great government efforts or spending to fix it. This impression is partially true, people moved to cities where owning a car was less important, however government did, and still does, spend a good deal of money and effort on public transit. Although James did not point this out, he wanted to show that comparing the digital divide to the automobile divide was not a very valid argument on Compaine's part.
On the other hand, the false impression that Jame's gives us about Compaine is that Compaine believes that the digital divide is completely negligible but this is not true. On p. 333 of Compaine's article he explains that he is very aware of the problems caused by the digital divide but that there are problems greater than inequities in technology. He came to this conclusion because he used to teach the importance of technology in impoverished countries. He then realized that most of the problems caused by the digital divide were trivial compared to the more serious problems faced by these countries. Compaine would argue that while the digital divide does cause inequities for certain groups, the places in which it is a significant problem have other, more important problems to focus on.
Actually, it was the move OUT of the cities to the suburban sprawl in the 1950s that made automobiles much more of a necessity than computers or being online is today. Yes, the government built the roads—though much of the money came from our pockets in the form of gasoline taxes. At any rate, car ownership became universal, even at a cost of $16,000 (in today's dollars) for a new car. Plus insurance, maintenance. Contrast that with the cost of $500 PC and a $700 per year DSL connection. A new set of tires cost more.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the demographics of cable and DBS subscribers-- especially premium services. Low income households are right up there. Why? It's good value. And cell phones. If we perceive being online is important, we'll get it.
Thanks for understanding my point of view in the second paragraph.
did the author of the article make a comment on your response?... that's cool.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we are at all concerned about the fact that the relative cost of cable/DBS service, or mobile service that includes Internet access (the sort of leapfrogging technology that many suggest will be the solution to providing widespread connectivity in the developing world - be that in the US or elsewhere) is an exponentially larger burden vis-à-vis income for impoverished people. Perhaps "we'll get it" - but at what cost?
ReplyDelete